54 Procedure. The documents submitted by the Commission and by the State after the application and the answer to the application were filed, respectively (supra paras. 122 and 124), as well as the annexes submitted by the representatives of the next of kin of the victim together with their final pleadings (supra para. 51), are also included in the body of evidence, in accordance with said Article of the Rules of Procedure. As regards the press documents submitted by the Commission (supra paras. 18 and 122), while they are not documentary evidence, they are important insofar as they express publicly known and notorious facts that corroborate aspects pertaining to the instant case.35 Evaluation of the Testimonial Evidence and Expert Opinions 132. With respect to the testimony rendered by Lucrecia Hernández Mack and Helen Mack Chang (supra paras. 127.c and 127.d), the Court admits it insofar as it is in accordance with the object of the examination proposed by the Commission and the representatives of the next of kin of the victim. In this regard, the Court notes that, in general, the statements of the next of kin of the victims are especially useful in matters pertaining both to the merits and to reparations inasmuch as they can provide very pertinent information on the damages caused by the violations.36 However, since the next of kin have a direct interest in the instant case, their statements cannot be assessed in an isolated manner, but rather within the whole set of evidence in the proceeding. 133. Regarding the testimony of Monsignor Julio Cabrera Ovalle, Virgilio Rodríguez Santana, Rember Larios Tobar, Henry Monroy Andrino, Gabriela Vásquez Smerelli, and Nadezhda Vásquez Cucho, as well as the expert opinions of Katharine Doyle, Henry El Khoury Jacob, Iduvina Hernández, Mónica Pinto, and Alicia Neuburger (supra paras. 127.a, 127.b, 127.e, 127.f, 127.g, 127.h, 127.i, 127.j, 127.k, 127.l and 127.m), which were neither disputed nor challenged, the Court admits them and gives them value as evidence. VIII PROVEN FACTS 134. Based on what was stated above regarding acknowledgment of responsibility by the State in the instant case, the facts set forth in the application, the documentary evidence, the statements of the witnesses, the expert opinions of the expert witnesses, and the statements by the Commission, by the representatives of the next of kin of the victim and by the State, the Court deems the following facts proven: With respect to Myrna Mack Chang 35 Cf. Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 9, para. 56; Cantos Case, Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 39; Baena Ricardo et al. Case. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 78. 36 Cf. Bulacio Case, supra note 9, para. 66; Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 9, para. 57; and “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 9, para. 85.