1) Julio César Rivera (h.), expert witness proposed by the representatives, attorney specialized in civil rights and constitutional law who rendered his expert opinion on the functioning of civil proceedings in Argentina, procedural and substantive law in these cases, the effect of convictions from this forum, and the difficulties that arise from a legal system that leaves to the discretion of judges the establishment of the amount of reparation without including standards of proportionality. 12. In regard to the evidence provided in the public hearing, the Court received the statements of the following persons: 1) Jorge Fontevecchia, alleged victim proposed by the representatives, who rendered a statement on the alleged facts and circumstances related to the case; his work as director and the nature of the magazine Noticias, as well as the role this magazine played in the public debate on Argentine politics, and the alleged effects of the order to pay pecuniary compensation; 2) Héctor D´Amico, alleged victim proposed by the representatives, who declared on the alleged facts and circumstances related to the case; his work as editor with the magazine Noticias, and the alleged effects of the order to pay a pecuniary compensation, and 3) Roberto Saba, 10 attorney, Dean of the School of Law of University of Palermo, expert summoned ex oficio by the President of the Court, who rendered an expert opinion on whether the civil sanctions constitute undue restrictions on freedom of expression and on an appropriate legal framework that offers sufficient guarantees so that the restrictions of freedom of expression comply with the terms of Article 13 of the American Convention. B. Admissibility of the evidence 13. In this case, as in others, the Court accepts the evidentiary value of the documents presented by the parties at the proper procedural moment that were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned. 11 The documents that the Tribunal requested that were provided by the Commission and the representatives together with their observations and the final written arguments as well as the written report of expert witness Saba are incorporated into the body of evidence under Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. 14. In relation to press releases, this Court considers that they may be assessed insofar as they refer to public and notorious facts or statements made by State officials 10 On August 1, 2011, after legal notice of the Order of Summons, supra note 5, the State, inter alia, challenged Mr. Roberto Saba. The objection was dismissed by the President of the Court, decision that was communicated to the parties on August 5, 2011 (expediente of merits, tome I, folios 444 to 447). 11 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 140, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. V. Uruguay, supra note 8, para. 21. 6