11 28. Also, in application of Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure, specific documents were incorporated into the proceedings as probative elements and, pursuant to Article 45(2), the parties were asked to present helpful information (supra paras. 13 and 14). B) ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE 29. In this case, as in others,41 in application of Articles 44, 45(1) and 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court accepts the probative value of those documents and clarifications submitted by the parties at the opportune time, or as helpful evidence, that have not been contested or disputed, and the authenticity of which has not been questioned. 30. It is worth emphasizing that the evidence for many of the facts contained in the Commission’s application is based on press Articles and information on Internet sites. In its case law, the Court has assessed the probative value of press Articles only when they refer to well-know public facts or statements made by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects of the case42 that have been established by other means.43 This was the situation as regards the probative value of the information offered by the Commission to substantiate certain facts. Consequently, in the instant case, the Court will consider such facts proved insofar as they have not been contested by the State (supra paras. 16 to 21). 31. Regarding the testimonies, declarations, the informative statement, and the expert opinion provided, the Court considers them pertinent to the extent that they relate to the purpose defined by the President in the Order requiring them (supra para. 12). 32. Mario Joseph, who has been Mr. Neptune’s lawyer in the domestic proceedings and before the inter-American system, declared by means of an affidavit and during the hearing. The Court assesses his statements only to the extent they provide information and relate to the purpose defined by the President, and together with the body of evidence, since, in his capacity as Mr. Neptune’s lawyer, he was unable to testify as a witness or an expert witness. This decided by the President and the Court in their orders of August 30 and November 29, 2007, respectively. 33. The Court considers that the testimony of alleged victims or their family members cannot be assessed alone since they have a direct interest in the case; 44 hence the testimony provided by Yvon Neptune will be assessed together with the body of evidence in the proceedings. 34. Regarding the documents incorporated into the proceedings as probative elements in application of Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure (supra paras. 14 and 28), the Court has understood that, in the case of documents issued by international organizations such as 41 Cf. Loayza Tamayo v. Perú. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, para. 53; The Saramaka People, supra note 36, para. 66, and Albán Cornejo et al., supra note 38, para. 29. 42 Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 34, para. 146; The “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Merits, supra note 40, para. 75; La Cantuta v. Perú. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 65; Nogueira de Carvalho et al., supra note 37, para. 65 43 Cf. La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 59; The Saramaka People, supra note 36, para. 67, and Albán Cornejo et al., supra note 38, para. 35. 44 Cf. Loayza Tamayo v. Perú. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; The Saramaka People, supra note 36, para. 68, and Albán Cornejo et al., supra note 38, para. 33.