10 B) ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE 41. In this case, as in others, in application of Article 45(1) and 45(2) of statements submitted by the parties at the proper procedural opportunity or as helpful evidence, which were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned.10 The Court also admits the helpful evidence provided by the representatives on June 8 and 15, 2007, taking into account the observations made by the State, and assesses it together with the body of evidence in the case. Regarding the press cuttings submitted by the parties, the Court has considered that they can be assessed when they refer to well-know, public facts or statements by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case that have already been proved by other means.11 42. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court adds to the body of evidence the documents presented by the State during the public hearing held on January 23 and 24, 2007, and those forwarded by the State on January 23, 2007, because it considers them useful to decide this case and because they were not contested and their authenticity was not questioned by either the Commission or the representatives. 43. Regarding the testimonies and expert opinion given in this case, the Court finds them pertinent to the extent they comply with the purpose defined by the President in the Order requiring them (supra para. 8), and takes into account the observations of the State. The Court accepts that the Commission desisted from offering Mr. Piqueras Luna, who had been summoned as a witness (supra para. 9). 44. Regarding the testimonial statements made by the next of kin of Saúl CantoralHuamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz, the Court considers that these statements cannot be assessed in isolation since these persons have a direct interest in the case; hence their statements will be assessed together with all the evidence in the case.12 45. Regarding the admission of the evidence, the State indicated that the “lack of procedural certainty in the Order [of the President of the Court of December 11, 2006,] that varied the procedural situation of the proposed expert witnesses[, Manuel Piqueras-Luna and Gustavo Espinoza-Montesinos, and decided to receive their statements as witnesses], contributed to rendering the State defenseless.” In this regard, the Court has accepted that the Commission desisted from proposing Mr. Piqueras-Luna (supra para. 43); hence, it will only rule on the statement that was effectively made, that of Gustavo Espinoza-Montesinos. Second, the Court recalls that the President has the power to decide the capacity in which he considers it pertinent to receive the evidence offered and that the Court has broad powers to receive the evidence it considers necessary.13 Furthermore, the Court deems that the State’s right to defense and to adversarial proceedings was guaranteed since Peru was able to submit the observations it considered pertinent when the evidence was provided, as well as on the statement made by Mr. Espinoza-Montesinos. Based on the above, the Court incorporates this statement into the body of evidence in this case and 10 Cf. Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina, supra note 8, para. 38; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 59; and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 62 11 Cf. Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina, supra note 8, para. 46; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 59; and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 65. 12 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 60; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 64, and Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 6, para. 196. 13 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 6, para. 184; Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 69; Case of Servellón-García et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 35; and Case of Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, paras. 44 and 48.