9 statement rendered before a notary public (affidavit) of the witness, S. Punwasi.18 With regards to the evidence rendered at the public hearing, the Court heard the statements of the alleged victim, Mr. Liakat Alibux,19 and the expert witness, Héctor Olasolo20 (supra para. 8). Finally, the Court received documents offered by the representative of the alleged victim attached to the brief of final written arguments (supra para. 9). B. Admission of the evidence B.1 Admission of the documentary evidence 25. In this case, as in others, the Court grants probative value to those documents presented by the parties and the Commission at the appropriate procedural opportunity (supra paras. 2 and 6 to 9) that were not contested or opposed and the authenticity of which was not challenged.21 The documents requested by the Court that were submitted by the parties after the public hearing are incorporated into the record of evidence pursuant to Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. 26. By way of notes from the Secretariat of the Court dated February 22, November 12, and December 3, 2013, the State was asked to provide as evidence to facilitate adjudication the regulations governing the restriction of the right to leave the country by persons charged or accused of a criminal offense; copies of the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code of Suriname; the statutes regulating the organization and composition of the High Court of Justice; and the documentation related to the determination of the composition of the Court that heard the criminal proceedings against Mr. Alibux. The required regulations were not submitted in their entirety. However, the Court will take into consideration, where relevant, the articles that were mentioned in the briefs of the parties, and this will be assessed in the corresponding paragraphs. 27. As to the newspaper articles and press releases submitted by the Commission,22 the Court has considered that they can be assessed when they refer to public and notorious facts or declarations made by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case. Thus, the Court decides to admit those documents that are complete or that, at the very least, allow their source and date of publication to be verified, and will assess them taking into account the body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion.23 18 Statement of S. Punwasi in regard to the application of the Penal Code, the Penal Code of Procedure, the Indictment of Political Office Holders Act, and related regulations, at the time of the facts, in the investigation, prosecution, and final judgment of Mr. Alibux. 19 Statement of Liakat Ali Alibux on the procedure that led to his criminal conviction and its consequences. 20 Statement of expert witness Héctor Olásolo, university professor, regarding the reach and scope of the rule of freedom from ex post fact laws under the international law of human rights and the background of the regulations, including the regulations governing procedure, that could substantially effect the exercise of the State’s punitive power. He also analyzed how this matter has been handled in other systems of human rights protection in regard to the application of the test of forseability in a criminal trial. 21 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 140, and Case of J., supra, para. 40. 22 Note published in the newspaper “De Ware Tijd” on August 13, 2001, entitled “Public Prosecutions Department wants indictment of Alibux” (attachments to the report on the Merits, folio 9), and note published in the “Caribbean NetNews” on January 10, 2009, entitled “Suriname exminister jailed for corruption”, available at http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/caribnet/archivelist.php?newsid=13443&pageaction=showdetail&news_id=134 43&arcyear=2009&arcmonth=1&areday=1O=&ty. 23 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 146, and Case of J., supra, para. 41.