21 those documents and they refer to the delimitation of their evidentiary value. In this regard, the Tribunal considers that the documents provided are useful for the resolution of the present case. However, in attention to the objections made, they will be assessed in the relevant parts of the present Judgment in what they adjust to the object of the present case, and taking into account that stated by the Court in Chapter VIII of this Judgment (infra. paras. 116 and 117). 72. In what refers to the State’s request to “leave out of the body of evidence” some of the works presented by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives,50 the Court considers they are documentary evidence that can be admitted and assessed. They refer to written works that include statements or voluntary statements made by their authors for their public dissemination. In that sense, the assessment of their content is not subject to the formalities required for testimonial evidence. However, their evidentiary value will depend on what can be corroborated or up to what point they refer to aspects related to the specific case. Due to the aforementioned, and since the State has not contested the content of those books, the Court has decided to assess them taking into account the totality of the body of evidence and that stated in Chapter VIII of the present judgment (infra paras. 116 and 117), in all that refers to the case sub judice. 73. Regarding the report issued by the Special Prosecutors’ Office for Social and Political Movements of the Past (hereinafter “Report of the Special Prosecutors’ Office”) offered by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives, the State indicated that “said document does not have an official nature nor has the government granted it an official Regarding the three reports of international bodies presented by the petitioners, the State indicated that none of them “deserve[d] to be include[d] in the body of evidence of the […] Court.” Specifically, it stated that the Diagnosis on the situation of human rights in Mexico, 2004, from the United Nations High Commissioner’s Office (OACNUDH), as well as the Report of the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations, Mr. Nigel S. Rodley, presented in accordance with order 1997/38 of the Human Rights Commission, along with the visit of the Special Rapporteur to Mexico E/CN.4/1998/38/Add.2, January 14, 1998, include “general” that is not related to the present case. Likewise, regarding the Report of the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the independence of senior judges and attorneys, Mr. Doto Param Coomaraswamy presented, pursuant with order 2001/39 of the Human Rights Commission, along with the Report on the mission to Mexico, E/CN.4/2002/72/Add.1, January 24, 2002, the State indicated that “[i]t does not adjust either to the case sub judice, since his mandate is directed towards the supervision of the independence of superior judges and attorneys.” Regarding the report titled Non-extinguishable nature of the crimes against humanity versus the non-retroactive nature of criminal law: a false dilemma, of Mr. Federico Andreu-Guzmán, Legal Advisor for Latin America and the Caribbean of the International Justice Commission, and the report titled “Disappearance: A Permanent Crime, June 2002, of Mexico’s International Amnesty, the State indicated that both refer to matters that “have already been studied and amply dealt with in different treaties and international courts.” Regarding the Amicus Curiae before the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Peru, February 28, 2007, of the International Commission of Attorneys; the International Amnesty Report, Mexico: Under the Shadow of Impunity, and the three reports from Human Rights Watch, namely: Justice in Danger: Mexico’s first serious initiative to refer to the abuses of the past could fail, New York, July 2003; Abuses and Neglect, Torture, Forced Disappearance, and Extra-Legal Execution in Mexico, New York, 1999, and Military Injustice, the reluctancy of Mexico to punish the army’s abuses, New York, 2001, the State requested that the Court “dismiss them since they refer to a context that does not form part of the facts of the [present] case.” Finally, regarding the document titled Clarification and punishment of crimes of the past during the six-year period 2000-2006: Broken commitments and delayed justice, October 2006, the State indicated that “since the NGOs CMDPDH and AFADEM, which are the representatives of the alleged victims participated in their elaboration, […] its content is flawed from its origins.” 50 The State referred to the text presented by the Inter-American Commission: Radilla Martínez, Andrea, Voces Acalladas (Vidas Truncadas), 2nd ed., Mexico, Editorial Program Nueva Visión 2007-Women’s Secretariat of Guerrero-Universidad Autónoma de Guerrero-UAFyL, 2008. Likewise, it made reference to the following texts presented by the representatives: Montemayor, Carlos, Guerra en el paraíso, 2nd edition, Mexico, Seix BarralPlaneta-booket, 2002; Montemayor Carlos, La guerrilla recurrente, Mexico, Random House Editorial Group Mondadori-Colección Debate, 2007, and Moreno Barrera, Jorge, La guerra sucia en México. El toro y el lagarto 1968-1980, Libros para Todos, 2002.