Tineo, and (3) Frida Edith Pacheco Tineo, and three expert witnesses: (1) Pablo Ceriani, (2) Rafael Ortiz Pozo, and (3) Mario Uribe Rivera. 44. Regarding the evidence provided during the public hearing, the Court received the statements of the presumed victims Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco and Fredesvinda Tineo Godos, and also of Juan Carlos Molina Remecín, witness offered by the State, and of expert witness Juan Carlos Murillo, offered by the Commission.35 B. Admission of documentary evidence 45. In this case, as in others,36 the Court accepts the probative value of those documents forwarded by the parties at the appropriate procedural stage, which were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not challenged, exclusively to the extent that they are pertinent and useful to determine the facts and their eventual legal consequences. The Court will now examine the different objections presented by the parties in relation to the documentary evidence. i. Newspaper articles 46. With regard to newspaper articles, the Court has considered that these may be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or declarations of State officials, or when they corroborate aspects of the case.37 Therefore, the Court decides to admit the newspaper articles that are complete or that, at least, allow their source and date of publication to be determined, and will assess them taking into account the whole body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. ii. Incorporation of opinions rendered in other cases 47. In relation to the representatives’ request to incorporate into the case file the expert opinions rendered by Miguel Cillero and Emilio García Méndez in the case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile,38 the Court recalls that, as established in the Order of February 19, 2013, “the President f[ound] it appropriate to incorporate the said expert opinions […] into the case file […] as documentary evidence.” As indicated in that Order, “it is pertinent to emphasize that the incorporation into the file of a case being processed of expert opinions rendered in another case does not mean that these opinions have the probative value or weight of an expert opinion provided under the adversarial principles and the right of defense.”39 Thus, and bearing in mind the objections raised by the State in exercise of its right of defense, the Court incorporates these documents into the case file as opinions and references on legal doctrine provided by authorities in the matter on which they testified, which could be relevant to, or provide guidance 35 6). The purpose of the testimony is determined in the said Order of the President of February 19, 2013 (supra note 36 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140 and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 31 37 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, para. 146 and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 33 38 Miguel Cillero provided an opinion on the treatment of the principle of the best interests of the child in international law, and Emilio García Méndez provided an opinion on international standards in relation to the rights of children applicable in cases concerning custody and care; the way in which the best interests of the child and the right to take part in and to be heard in matters that concern them should be reflected in the actions of the judicial authorities who decide these cases, and the adverse consequences on the best interests of the child when discriminatory prejudices are applied in such decisions. Cf. Expert opinion provided by Miguel Cillero Bruñol before the Inter-American Court on August 4, 2011, in the Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239; and Expert opinion of Emilio García Méndez before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held in the Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile on August 23, 2011. 39 Order of the President of February 19, 2013, considering paragraphs 52 and 53. 16