19 alleged victims and/or their next of kin are useful insofar as they can supply additional information on the alleged violations and their consequences.8 51. Concerning the statements made before notary public (affidavits) by experts María del Pilar Raffo-Lavalle de Quiñones and Sofía Macher (supra para 48(c) and (d)), the Court will admit them to the extent they make reference to the subjectmatter and will weigh them as part of the whole body of evidence of the case and pursuant to the standards of reasonable credit and weight analysis. 52. Regarding the documents submitted as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case by the State (supra para. 21), the Court will admit them as part of the body of evidence of the case, pursuant to the provisions in Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Regarding other documents, requested as evidence to facilitate adjudication on several occasions and absent their submission to the Court by the State or the representatives (supra para. 21), the Court reiterates that in order to have as many elements of evidence in order to know the facts and justify its decisions, it is paramount that the parties should provide the Court with all the evidentiary elements either requested by the Court as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case or upon request by the parties.9 Specifically, in the cases of human rights violations the burden of this duty rests upon the States, as the States must provide the Tribunal with the evidence that can only be obtained with their cooperation. 10 (infra para. 84). 53. Regarding the press copy submitted by the parties, this Court has found that even though it does not amount to documentary evidence per se, it could be assessed to the extent it gives an account of well-known public facts, statements by State officials, or they corroborate aspects relating to the instant case.11 On the other hand, Law No. 25,926 of February 21, 1998, which introduced certain changes to the Peruvian Penal Code, is considered a useful document for determining the instant case, and it is therefore made part of the body of evidence in the instant case, pursuant to the provisions in Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. VII PROVEN FACTS 8 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez Soler, supra note 4, para. 456; Case of Yatama. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 116, and Case of the of Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 43. 9 Cf. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 89; Case of Yatama, supra note 8, para. 134, and Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 47. 10 Cf. Case of Yatama, supra note 8, para. 134; Case of Acosta Calderón, supra note 9 para. 47, and Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 83. 11 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 79; Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico, supra note 9, para. 96, and Case of Yatama, supra note 8, para. 119.