-48Fujimori’s negative background. The court “ruled against” the magazine, because in such circumstances there was no way of winning a case, but “when the regime came to an end, the judgment was subject to review and annulled.” The premises of Caretas magazine are just next to the Municipality of Lima. Both buildings are located in the Plaza de Armas. Such location of the magazine’s offices, allowed him to witness the demosntrations carried out by the SITRAMUN, which were remarkable “not only for their frequency and the degree of vandalism, but also because of the attitude of the police.” Whilst the police was severe in other situations, it was passive towards the SITRAMUN demonstrations. He made reference to the demonstrations made in 2000. Tire-burning was permanent, megaphones were used, and the mayor’s residence was broken into, with the police reacting tardily. They thought it was evident that some kind of political move was behind all that, designed to erode the exposure or the image of a potential candidate, for which reason they devoted some articles to the issue. C) EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT Documentary Evidence Assessment 189. In the instant case, as in others27, the Court recognizes the evidentiary value of the documents submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural stage, which have neither been disputed nor challenged, and whose authenticity has not been questioned. 190. As to the documents forwarded as evidence, clarifications and explanations to facilitate the adjudication of the case (supra paras. 69, 72, 73, 74, 77, 104, 106 and 110), the Court admits them into the body of evidence pursuant to Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure, taking into consideration the comments submitted by the parties (supra paras. 86, 88, 89, 90, 93, 97 and 108). 191. As to the sworn statements which have not been given before a public official whose acts command full faith and credit by seven witnesses the Commission and the common intervener proposed and by an expert witness the common intervener proposed, the Court admits them inasmuch as they serve the purpose set forth by the Order of the President issued on August 1, 2005 and assesses them as a whole with the rest of the body of evidence, applying thereto the standards of reasonable credit and weight analysis and taking into consideration the comments filed by the State. On other occasions the Court has admitted sworn statements not given before a public official with authority to confer full faith and credit to the acts passed before him provided that legal certainty and the procedural equality between the parties28 are not impaired. In addition, the Court admits the waiver made by the Commission of the right to submit the expert opinion which was to be rendered by Josmell MuñozCórdoba (supra para. 58). 27 Cf. Case of Blanco-Romero et al, supra note 24, para. 43; Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 16, para. 88; and Case of Gómez-Palomino, supra note 21, para. 45. 28 Cf. Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 16, para. 92; Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 25, para. 57; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 16, para. 82.