33 78. With regard to the documents requested by this Court based on Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure and that were submitted by the parties (supra paras. 28 and 45), the Court includes them in the body of evidence of the instant case, applying the provisions set forth in the first paragraph of those rules. Also applying said article of the Rules of Procedure, the Court includes as evidence the documents submitted by the Commission and by the State after filing of the application and the reply to the application, respectively, and most of the appendixes submitted by the representatives and the State together with the final pleadings, as it deems them useful for the instant case. 79. As regards the press documents submitted by the representatives, as well as other articles and news reports published by the press, the Court deems that even though they are not documentary evidence proper, they will be considered when they reflect publicly known or notorious facts or statements of officials of the State, or when they corroborate what has been established in other documents or testimony received during the proceeding.11 80. The State objected to the statements rendered before a notary public (affidavits) by Sara Paola Pinzón López, Yur Mary Herrera Contreras, Zuli Herrera Contraras, Nadia Mariana Valencia Sanmiguel, Carmen Johanna Jaramillo Giraldo, Esther Pinzón López, and María Teresa Pinzón López, as well as the sworn statement by Luis Guillermo Pérez (supra paras. 29 and 32), on the basis that “they [are no longer in accordance with the object, as they] refer to facts pertaining to the rights to life, to humane treatment, and to liberty, and the State has acknowledged its responsibility regarding the violation of said rights.” Colombia also referred to certain alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of María Teresa Pinzón López, Sara Paola Pinzón López, Esther Pinzón López, Zuly Herrera Contreras, and Luis Guillermo Pérez. 81. With regard to the statements rendered as testimony before a notary public (affidavits), the Court accepts them insofar as they are in accordance with the object defined in the January 28, 2005 Order (supra para. 25), taking into account the comments made by the State (supra para. 32) and its acknowledgment of international responsibility (supra para. 34). Also, since the next of kin of the alleged victims have a direct interest in the case, their statements cannot be assessed in an isolated manner, but rather within the context of the body of evidence, applying the rules of competent analysis.12 82. The State objected to the sworn statement of witness Luis Guillermo Pérez because it was only authenticated by a notary public, and it therefore deemed that it “does not fulfill [the] important formality [of being rendered before a notary public (affidavit) and also because the witness] has no direct knowledge of the facts addressed in the proceeding and because he was a representative of the civil party in the domestic proceedings.” In this regard, the Court has accepted, in previous cases, sworn statements that were not rendered before a notary public, when this 11 See Case of Yatama, supra note 7, para. 119; Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 7,para. 51, and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 43. 12 See Case of Yatama, supra note 7, para. 122; Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 7,para. 49, and Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 43.