A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 33. The Court received different documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives, and the State attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 1, 2(c), 5 and 6). In addition, the Court received the affidavits of María Magdalena Mejías, Leydis Landaeta, Francy Parra, José Pablo Baraybar, Claudia Carrillo and Calixto Ávila, offered by the representatives; Desiree Noelis Boada Guevara, offered by the State, and Hugo Fruhling and Diego Camaño, offered by the Commission. It also received statements without the corresponding authentication from Victoria Landaeta, Magaly Mercedes Vásquez González and Denotilia Hernández, offered by the representatives. Regarding the evidence provided during the public hearing, the Court received the testimony of Ignacio Landaeta offered by the representatives, and Yelitza Acacio Carmona offered by the State. B. Admission of the evidence B.1 Admission of the documentary evidence 34. In this case, as in others, the Court admits those documents presented by the parties and the Commission at the appropriate procedural opportunity 38 that were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not questioned. 39 The documents requested by the Court, which were provided by the parties after the public hearing, are incorporated into the body of evidence in application of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. 35. Regarding the newspaper articles presented by the Commission 40 and the representatives, 41 the Court has considered that they may be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case; accordingly, the Court decides to admit those documents that are complete or that, at least, allow the source and date of publication to be verified, and will assess them taking into account the whole body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 42 B.1.1 The attachments to the State’s final written arguments 36. In a brief of April 14, 2014, the representatives presented their observations on the attachments to the State’s final written arguments. In this regard, they argued that “the Baseline Reports concerning the participation of children in armed conflicts and the sale of children, child prostitution and the use of children in pornography, respectively, […] refer to aspects of domestic law on the protection of children that are not relevant for the analysis of this specific case.” Also, regarding the Consolidated Report presented to the Committee on the Rights of the Child in July 2012, and the Country Programme 38 On January 19, 2013, the State sent its answering brief, by error, to the e-mail address of the Commission. Subsequently, on January 28 that year, the State sent its answering brief to the e-mail address of the Court. In this regard, the Court observes that the time frame for the presentation of the State’s answering brief expired on January 22, 2014. However, as the State has proved that it committed an involuntary error as regards the e-mail address to which the brief had been sent, the Court considers that this situation did not affect the timely presentation of the brief. 39 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 140, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People), supra, para. 54. 40 The Court has verified that the Commission forwarded 20 newspaper articles (attachments to the Merits Report, folios 9, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 1015, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1022, 1024, 1025, 1027, 1028 and 1029). 41 The Court observes that the representatives forwarded seven newspaper articles (annexes to the motions and arguments brief, folios 7013 to 7017). 42 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 146, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People), supra, para. 58. 12