19 to which they adapt to the object defined by the President in the Order which requested their submission (supra para. 8), and taking into account the pertinent observations presented by the State regarding Francisco Arreaga Alonzo. Lastly, it is worth noting that the Court believes that the statements given by alleged victims may not be examined separately, given that they have a direct interest in the case, hence they will be assessed within the group of evidence of the proceeding36. 64. In relation to the sworn declarations (affidavits) of the expert opinions provided by Marco Antonio Garavito Fernández (supra para. 56.c) and Nieves Gómez Dupuis (supra para. 56.d), in its observations of June 17, 2009 the State indicated that those statements were not taken before a notary, as established in the President’s Order of May 18, 2009, but in a private document with a legalized signature, and that additionally they don’t meet the requirements of Article 227 of the Criminal Procedural Code, Decree No. 51-92, which establishes that “expert witnesses will accept the role under oath.” In that regard, the Court reiterates that indicated in the previous paragraph, in the sense that the procedures before it do not follow the same formalities as internal judicial proceedings. On other occasions the Court has admitted affidavits which were not given before a notary public, when it did not affect the legal certainty and procedural equity between the parties. In the instant case, the Court has not found any grounds to consider that the admittance of the affidavits under consideration, meaning those with a signature certified by a notary public, affected the legal certainty or procedural equity of the parties. In any case, the individual giving the statement does not reject or disavow the content of the declaration attributed to him, but ensures through his signature certified before a notary public that he is the author of that testimony, assuming the legal consequences of that act. In view of the foregoing, the Court accepts as evidence the expert opinions with the expert witness’s signature duly certified by a notary, and will assess them along with the body of evidence, applying the rules of competent analysis and taking into consideration the parties’ objections.37 65. In relation to the statements given by Ramiro Osorio Cristales (supra para. 57.a) and Felicita Herenia Romero Ramírez (supra para. 57.b), the Court deems them pertinent to the extent to which they adjust to the object defined by the President in the Order which requested their submission (supra para. 8). The Court reiterates that previously mentioned with regard to the assessment of declarations given by the alleged victims (supra para. 63). 66. With regard to the expert opinions provided by Edgar Fernando Pérez Archila (supra para. 57.c), Carlos Manuel Garrido (supra para. 57.d) and Claudia Paz y Paz Bailey (supra para. 57.e), the Court admits them into evidence taking into account the objective established for them in the President’s Order of May 18, 2009 (supra para. 8), and will assess them with the body of evidence of the instant case and rules of competent analysis. 67. With regard to the press documents submitted by the parties, the Court considers that they may be appraised when they gather public and notorious facts or declarations by State employees, or when they verify aspects related to the case.38 36 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 39; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 34, para. 62, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 33, para. 74. 37 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador., supra note 36, para. 40, Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 34, para. 62, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 33, para. 74. 38 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 30, para. 146; Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 33, para. 76, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 25.