18 scope of the Constitutional Court’s judgment in C-370 of 2006 and the alleged violation of the victims’ fundamental rights. f) Ramiro Saavedra Becerra, an expert proposed by the State who is President of the Council of State. The expert offered his expert report on the elements required to substantiate a claim against the State for damages which arose from failures in its service delivery and the parameters used by the Colombian Council of State in matters of reparation for this type of liability. g) Eduardo Pizarro Leongómez, an expert proposed by the State is President of the National Commission on Reparation and Reconciliation [Presidente de la Comisión Nacional de Reparación y Reconciliación]. The expert offered his expert opinion on the alleged activities carried out by the Colombian State to provide redress to victims of gross violations of human rights within the context of the Justice and Peace Law and the alleged dismantling of the paramilitary phenomenon. B) ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE 59. In this case, as in others,24 in application of Articles 45(1) and 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal admits the probative value of the documents and observations presented by the parties in a timely fashion, and the evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, to which no objection was raised, and whose authenticity was not questioned or disputed. With regard to articles published by the press that were presented by the parties, the Tribunal considers that they may be assessed when they include public or notorious facts, or statements of State employees or when they corroborate aspects related to the case25 verified by other means. Additionally, the Court adds the documents presented by the representatives and the State at the end of the public hearing held on January 31 and February 1, 2007 to the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure and since it considers them useful in the ruling of this case. 60. With regard to the testimonies and expert opinions offered by the witnesses and experts, the Court considers them relevant inasmuch as they conform to the objective of testimony defined by the President in the Order in which he called for their reception (supra para. 7), taking into account the observations presented by the parties. This Tribunal considers that the testimonial statements offered by the victims cannot be assessed in isolation, given their direct interest in this case, and thus their statements will be assessed within the totality of the evidence presented in this case.26 Likewise, the Court accepts the State’s withdrawal of expert witness Augusto Ramírez Ocampo’s written statement (supra para. 58). 61. The Commission and the representatives objected to the substitution of the sworn statement of witness Nubia Herrera for that of Carlos Gómez Pavajeau (supra para. 57.i), arguing that its presentation contradicts the order to convene the public hearing in which the President rejected the State’s request to substitute some of the deponents with a State 24 Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 8, para. 62; Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 11, para. 57; and Case of Ximenes Lopes. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 48. 25 Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 8, para. 65; Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al., supra note 20, para. 65; and Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.), supra note 16, para. 86. 26 Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 8, para. 64; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 8, para. 196; and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 16, para. 78.