20 Carlos Vega-Delgado, and to omit submission of that evidence (supra para. 30). 58. The State has challenged the sworn statement of the expert witness Alex Avsolomovich-Callejas (supra para. 39) filed by the representatives on June 3, 2005, since the submission of expert opinions “after the public hearing,” among other things, “has prevented the State [...] from cross-examining the expert witness.” To that respect, the Court finds that the submission of testimonies or expert opinions through an affidavit executed before a public officer does not allow the parties to “cross-examine” the appearing witnesses or expert witnesses. However, as done by the State in the writing of June 15, 2005, regarding the statement of the expert witness Avsolomovich-Callejas (supra para. 39), a procedural opportunity is given for them to file any comments they may deem relevant pursuant to the principle of adversary proceedings. Therefore, the Court finds that, as established by the President in the Order of March 18, 2005, and in accordance with the written sworn statements specified above, the expert opinion of Avsolomovich-Callejas “may contribute to allow the Court to establish the facts in the instant case” inasmuch as it satisfies the purpose set forth in said Order. Therefore, it is assessed as a whole with the rest of the body of evidence, applying the standards of reasonable credit and weight analysis and taking into consideration the comments submitted by the State (supra para. 39). 59. The Court considers that the appendixes to the expert opinion rendered by María Inés Horvitz (supra para. 28), and the documents sent by the State (supra para. 43), which have not been contradicted or contested and whose authenticity has not been questioned, are useful; therefore, the Court incorporates them to the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 60. As to the press documents submitted by the parties, this Court has considered that they may be assessed insofar as they contain public and notorious facts or statements given by State officials or confirm aspects related to the case.8 61. Furthermore, in accordance to Article 45(1) of the Rules, the Court admits into the body of evidence the State Security Law, the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure in force in 1993, and the Chilean Code of Military Justice, since they are helpful for the adjudication of the instant case. Testimonial and Expert Evidence Assessment 62. As regards the statement rendered by the witness proposed by the Commission and the representatives, and the expert report issued by the expert witness proposed by the representatives in the instant case (supra para. 36), the Court admits them inasmuch as they be in accordance with the purpose of the interrogatory defined by the President in the Orders of March 18 and April 28, 2005, (supra paras. 23 and 30), and recognizes their evidentiary value, taking into consideration the comments filed by the parties. This Court finds that the testimony rendered by Humberto Antonio Palamara-Iribarne (supra paras. 36 and 54), which is 8 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 79; Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico, supra note 2, para. 96; and Case of YATAMA, supra note 5, para. 119.