-50- 196. The Commission filed objections to the brief and the attachments submitted “as amicus curiae” by the Public Attorney of the Municipalidad Metropolitana de Lima (Metropolitan Municipality of Lima) on its behalf (supra para. 52), since it is the body to which the non-compliance with judgments is attributed and the Municipality Public Attorney was accredited by the State to take part at the public hearing (supra para. 62). In this regard, the Court admits the foregoing brief, since the attachments thereto contain useful and relevant information about the factual substance of the instant case, taking into consideration the objections filed by the Commission. Therefore, it is admitted into the body of evidence pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 197. As to the brief and the attachments thereto filed by the Office of the Ombudsman of Peru on April 29, 2005 as amicus curiae (supra para. 42), the Court finds them useful and assesses such documents 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, and that they were forwarded by a Peruvian state agency.32 Therefore, they are admitted into the body of evidence pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 198. The Court finds useful for the adjudication of the instant case the briefs and documents submitted by the Commission regarding groups of alleged victims who were not represented by the common intervener (supra paras. 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84 and 92), the authenticity or truthfulness of which were not challenged, whereby the Court admits them into the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 199. As to the press documents submitted by the parties, this Court has considered that they may be assessed insofar as they contain public and notorious facts or statements given by State officials or confirm aspects related to the case.33 200. Likewise, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court admits Law No. 27,803 of July 28, 2002 into the body of evidence, since it is useful for the adjudication of the instant case. 201. By Order issued on February 6, 2006 (supra para. 114) the Court decided to dismiss the request for a new hearing submitted by the State in the brief it filed on January 27, 2006, as well as the new argument presented therein regarding the acknowledgment of responsibility made before the Commission (supra para. 109). 202. The Court finds the brief filed by the State on January 30, 2006 on “judicial [p]roceedings closed due to their discontinuance” (supra para. 110) to be timebarred, whereby it has not been admitted into the body of evidence in the instant case. Testimonial evidence assessment 32 Cf. Case of YATAMA, supra note 6, para. 113; and Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 30, para. 40. 33 Cf. Case of Blanco-Romero et al, supra note 24, para. 48; Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 16, para. 93; and Case of Gómez-Palomino, supra note 21, para. 53.