December 28, 1977, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on July 24, 1984, while the facts of the instant case occurred as of May 16, 1997. V EVIDENCE 21. Based on the provisions of Articles 50, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on the Court’s case law regarding evidence and its assessment,10 the Court will examine and assess the documentary evidence provided at different procedural opportunities, the statements of the presumed victims, and the expert opinions provided by affidavit and during the public hearing before the Court, as applicable. To this end, the Court will abide by the rules of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework. 11 1. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence, 22. The Court has received documents submitted by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State together with their main briefs and, on other occasions, in response to requests by the Court (supra paras. 1, 4, 5, 9 and 10). The Court has also received the affidavits of presumed victims Pablo Palma Pico and Nelson Palma Mendoza 12 (supra para. 7). All the said documents and statements were forwarded opportunely to the parties and to the Inter-American Commission so that they could present any observations they considered pertinent. Regarding the evidence provided at the public hearing, the Court received the testimony of presumed victims Lidia Bravo and Luis Palma Bravo, and of expert witness Diego Zalamea León (supra para. 7). 2. Admission of the documentary evidence 23. In this case, as in others, the Court grants probative value to those documents presented opportunely by the parties that were not contested or opposed and the authenticity of which was not questioned.13 24. Regarding newspaper articles, this Court has considered that they can be assessed when they contain well-known public facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate certain aspects of the case.14 The Court decides to admit the documents that are complete or that, at least, allow verification of their source and date of publication, and it will assess them, taking into account the whole body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion.15 10 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 31. 11 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. para. 76, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 31. 12 Cf. Case of Palma Mendoza et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the Court of January 25, 2012, fifth operative paragraphs. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/palma_25_01_12.pdf 13 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 140, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 35, 14 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, para. 146, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 36. 15 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, para. 146, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 36. 8