14 1997; articles titled “Premios a la Resistencia,” “Comandante EP Pedro Rejas, El Colorado del Rescate,” “Manuel Aguirre Roca, Defensa Constitucional” and “Carolina Loayza, Abogada y Hermana,” published in “Illustración Peruana Careta,” December 26, 1997, No. 1497; official memorandum No. 224-98INPE/CR.SE. to Mr. Mario Federico Cavagnaro-Basile, Public Prosector, dated April 27, 1998, and official memorandum No. 082-98-D-EPMSM/CH-PNP, to Peruvian National Police General Rodolfo Angeles Varillas, Executive Secretary of the INPE Executive Commission, dated April 21, 1998). 53. As the documents presented by the State were neither contested nor challenged, nor was their authenticity questioned, the Court accepts them as valid and orders that they be added to the body of evidence in the instant Case. * * * 54. On May 28, 1998, the victim presented seven declarations signed in the presence of a notary and six documents; as legal grounds for adding the latter to the body of evidence, she cited articles 43 and 44 of the Rules of Procedure. (cf. Declarations signed in the presence of a notary by Gisselle Elena and Paul Abelardo Zambrano-Loayza; Julio Loayza-Sudario, Adelina Tamayo de Loayza and Olga Adelina, Elizabeth Giovanna and Carolina, all by the surname Loayza-Tamayo; certification of the court or criminal record of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, issued on May 8, 1998, by the Supreme Council of Military Justice; a copy of a letter dated April 27, 1998, from María Elena Loayza-Tamayo to her sister Carolina; a preliminary report on the situation of Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, prepared by the Fundación de Ayuda Social de las Iglesias Cristianas [Christian Churches’ Social Aid Foundation]; certification of payment for the schooling of Gisselle Elena and Paul Abelardo Zambrano-Loayza, and the curriculum vitae of Dr. Shirley Elena Lilliana Mora, psychiatrist). 55. In its brief of June 8, 1998, Peru objected to the declarations signed in the presence of a notary, arguing that their admission into evidence would vitiate the proceedings and violate the provisions of articles 46 and 47 of the Rules of Procedure. Peru further stated that the declarations signed in the presence of a notary appeared to have been drafted by the same person and the purpose of the questioning was not indicated when the statements were offered up as evidence. 56. For the sake of procedural speed and economy, the President had requested that both the victim and the State give “particular consideration […] to the possibility of presenting some testimonial and expert evidence in the form of sworn affidavits” (supra 13). This would help ensure that the oral proceedings at this stage of the proceedings would be dispatched as swiftly as possible, without limiting the right of the victim, of the Commission and of the State to offer any testimony that, in their opinion, the Court should hear directly. 57. Accordingly, the declarations signed in the presence of a notary and presented by the victim should be admitted into evidence. The Court has the discretionary authority to weigh the declarations or statements presented to it, both written and otherwise. Like any court, it can properly weigh the evidence, applying the rule of “sound criticism” that enables judges to arrive at a decision as to the truth of the facts alleged, while bearing in mind the object and purpose of the American Convention (Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76). 58. One of the documents challenged by the State was the “Preliminary Report.” Peru’s argument was that the report had not been signed by the individual responsible for issuing it. However, the Court has seen the original document submitted by the victim, which bears the signature of Ms. Eliana Horvitz, psychiatrist