72. Regarding the newspaper articles, 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. Therefore, the Court decides to admit those documents that are complete or that, at least, permit their source and date of the publication to be verified. 37 73. Also, in application of Article 58 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the following documents are incorporated into the case file: (1) the AAAS Report on the changes that have occurred in the territory of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community from 1993 to date; (2) the Regulations to the Honduran Property Act; (3) Executive Decree 0352001 of August 28, 2001; (4) file No. 6714-2003 on the usurpation complaint filed against Luis Portillo that prejudiced Félix Ordóñez Suazo, 38 and (5) five certifications of public deeds related to presumed sales of lots located in the village of Rio Miel. B.2 Admission of the testimonial and expert evidence 74. The Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements made during the public hearing, and before notary public and traditional authorities, insofar as they relate to the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them (supra paras. 10 and 12) and the purpose of this case. The Court also admits the statements made during the on-site visit. B.3 Admission of the evidence related to mining exploration activities 75. In a communication of February 25, 2015, the representatives informed the Court of the intention to conduct mining exploration and extraction activities on part of the territory of the Punta Piedra community. As evidence of this, they provided a document entitled “Consolidated Annual Statement, DAC-2014,” prepared by the CAXINA S.A. Mining Corporation and dated January 27, 2015. This document indicates that, on December 4, 2014, CAXINA S.A. Mining Corporation received mining exploration license No. 105/12/2014 to execute activities in the “Punta Piedra II” mining concession over an area of 800 hectares for a period of 10 years. The documentation provided by the representatives was forwarded to the Commission and the State so that they could send their observations. Also, during the on-site procedure, the Court received a map in this regard from the State and visited one of the areas where the mining exploration activities would be executed. 76. Taking into consideration the information provided by the representatives, together with the observations of the Commission and the State, the Court finds that the facts alleged with regard to the “Punta Piedra II non-metallic mining concession” occurred after the presentation of the pleadings and motions brief and the public hearing in this case. Therefore, the Court considers that, pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Court's Rules of Procedure, the evidence and information was presented as Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits, supra, para. 146, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al., supra, para. 41. In this regard, they provided the newspaper articles mentioned in para. 65. 38 The Court notes that, in the Merits Report, the Commission refers to the complaints filed at the domestic level and the State's failure to conduct an investigation which prejudiced the members of the Punta Piedra community. In addition, during the proceedings before the Court, the State mentioned the existence of an usurpation complaint filed by Félix Ordóñez Suazo against Luis Portillo in 2003. Regarding these facts, the Court finds that the information provided by the State concerning the existence of the usurpation complaint completes and clarifies the domestic proceedings that form part of the factual framework of the said Merits Report (infra paras. 133 to 136). 37 21