29 91. Regarding the affidavits given by Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas and Celia AstoUrbano (supra para. 86), pursuant to the Order of the President of March 18, 2005 (supra para. 24), the Court admits them into the body of evidence of the instant case insofar as they refer to the purpose stated in said Order and shall assess them applying thereto the standards of reasonable credit and weight analysis, taking into consideration the acknowledgment of facts made by the State and the observations filed by the parties (supra paras. 31, 32, and 52). As the Court has held, the testimonies of the alleged victims and/or their next of kin are useful insofar as they can supply additional information on the alleged violations and the consequences thereof.14 Furthermore, the Court understands that the testimony of Urcesino RamírezRojas cannot be assessed separately as it relates to an alleged victim who holds a direct interest in the outcome of the case; rather, it should be assessed as part of the whole body of evidence in the proceedings. 92. Regarding the statements not taken before a notary public made by expert witnesses Mario Pablo Rodríguez-Hurtado and José Daniel Rodríguez-Robinson, as proposed by the Commission (supra para. 86), the Court shall admit them as part of the whole body of evidence in the instant case, and shall assess them applying thereto the standards of reasonable credit and weight analysis. On other occasions, the Court has admitted sworn statements which were not given before a public official with authority to confer full faith and credit to the acts passed before him provided that the principles of legal certainty and procedural equality between the parties15 are not impaired. The Court shall admit the expert opinion of Carlos Rivera-Paz, which was incorporated into the body of evidence in the instant case by Order of March 18, 2005 (supra para. 24) and shall assess it accordingly by the rules of sound judgment. 93. Regarding the press documents submitted by the parties, the Court has found that even though these documents lack evidentiary nature per se, they may be assessed insofar as they refer to public and notorious facts or statements given by State officials, or where they corroborate aspects related to the instant case.16 94. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court shall admit as part of the body of evidence of the instant case the Constitution of Peru of 1993, Decree-Laws Nos. 27.226 and 25.553, and the amendments to the Criminal Procedural Code which were not submitted by the State, as they are deemed helpful for the adjudication of the instant case. Testimonial evidence assessment 14 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 81; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 10, para. 39, and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 6, para. 45. 15 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 82; Case of Yatama. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 115; and Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 39. 16 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 79; Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico, supra note 1, para. 96, and Case of Yatama, supra note 15, para. 119.