authenticity of which was not challenged, exclusively to the extent that they are pertinent and useful for determining the facts and eventual legal consequences. 21 In addition, the Court finds that the testimony of the presumed victims and the 54. expert opinions provided by affidavit and during the public hearing are pertinent, only insofar as they abide by the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order requiring that they be received (supra paras. 10 and 11). They will be assessed in conjunction with the other elements of the body of evidence. Also, pursuant to this Court’s case law, the testimony given by the presumed victims cannot be weighed in isolation; but rather, it will be examined together with the rest of the evidence in the proceedings, because it is useful to the extent that it can provide additional information on the presumed violations and their consequences. 22 55. Regarding newspaper articles, this Court has considered that they can be assessed when they contain well-known public facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate certain aspects of the case. 23 The Court decides to admit those documents that are complete or that, at least, allow verification of their source and date of publication, and will assess them, taking into account the whole body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 56. With regard to the videos submitted by the representative, which have not been contested and the authenticity of which has not been questioned, the Court will assess their content within the context of the body of evidence, applying the rules of sound judicial discretion. 24 VI PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS A. Factual framework of the case 57. This Court has established that the factual framework of the proceedings before it is composed of the facts contained in the Merits Report submitted to the Court’s consideration. 25 Consequently, the parties may not allege new facts that differ from those contained in this report, without prejudice to submitting facts that explain, clarify or refute the facts mentioned in the report and submitted to the Court. 26 The exception to this principle is constituted by facts that are considered supervening, provided they are related to the facts of the proceedings. In addition, the presumed victims and their representatives 21 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, para. 43. 22 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 22, para. 43, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, para. 46. 23 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 146, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, para. 44. 24 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 93, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012 Series C No. 248, para. 64. 25 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica, para. 131. 26 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru, para. 153, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica, para. 131. 21