37 Court considers that, as the President had decided, this expert evidence “can help the Court determine the facts in the instant case,” to the extent that it corresponds to the purpose defined in the said order; it therefore assesses it with the body of evidence, applying the rules of sound criticism and taking into account the State’s observations (supra para. 33). 118. The Court considers useful the documents presented during the public hearing by the witness, Jorge Teytom Fedrick (supra para. 37), and also the documents forwarded by the representatives with their final written arguments (supra para. 43), which were not contested or opposed and their authenticity was not questioned, so the Court adds them to the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 119. In the case of the newspaper Articles submitted by the parties, the Court considers that they can be assessed to the extent that they refer to well-known public facts, or statements by State officials, or corroborate aspects of the instant case.19 120. The State “denied any legal value to any of the amicus curiae briefs submitted during the proceedings or subsequent to the oral hearing.” The Court admits these elements, considering that they are four amicus curiae briefs submitted by institutions who have an interest in the subject matter of the application and provide useful information (supra paras. 17, 34, 38 and 42). 121. Furthermore, in application of Article 45(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court incorporates into the body of evidence in this case, Act. No. 28 of October 30, 1987, entitled “Statute of Autonomy of the Atlantic Coast Regions of Nicaragua,” Electoral Act No. 211 of January 8, 1996, the report of the Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos de Nicaragua (INEC) [National Institute of Statistics and Censuses of Nicaragua] entitled “Población total por área de residencia y sexo, según departamento y grupos de edades, años 2002 y 2003” [Total population by area of residence and sex, by department and age group, 2002 and 2003], and the study made by the Fundación para la Autonomía y el Desarrollo de la Costa Atlántica de Nicaragua (FADCANIC) [Foundation for the Autonomy and Development of the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua] entitled “Caracterización Fisiogeográfica y Demográfica de las Regiones Autónomas del Caribe de Nicaragua” [Physiogeographical and demographic nature of the Autonomous Regions of the Nicaraguan Caribbean], which will be useful for deciding the instant case. Assessment of the testimonial and expert evidence 122. With regard to the statements made by the two witnesses who were proposed by the Commission and endorsed by the representatives, by the two witnesses and an expert witness proposed by the representatives, and by the two expert witnesses proposed by the State in this case (supra para. 111), the Court admits them to the extent they correspond to the purpose defined by the President in his order of January 28, 2005, and grants them probative value, bearing in mind the observations of the parties. The Court considers that the testimony of Anicia Matamoros (supra para. 111(b)(4)), which is useful, must be assessed together with all the evidence in the 19 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 10, para. 43; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 11, para. 80; and Case of De la Cruz Flores, supra note 15, para. 70.