21 relevant for deciding this case. This evidence will be assessed in accordance with the rules of sound judicial discretion and in conjunction with all the evidence in the proceedings. 62. Regarding the newspaper articles submitted by the parties, the Court has considered that they can be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or statements made by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case.22 63. Furthermore, the Court adds to the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure and because it finds it useful for deciding the case, the documentation requested by the Court as helpful evidence (supra paras. 9 to 12, 15, 17, 18, 49 and 52). This documentation includes the statements made by Salvatore Mancuso under the Peace and Justice Law. In this regard, as the parties were informed (supra paras. 17 and 18), the Court will maintain the due confidentiality of this information and incorporate into the body of evidence only those aspects that relate to the instant case, which will be assessed on the basis of sound judicial discretion together with the body of evidence in the case. 64. Having examined the probative elements in the case file, the Court will now analyze the alleged violations in the corresponding chapters, considering the facts that have been acknowledged and those that it finds proved.23 The Court will also consider the pertinent arguments of the parties, bearing in mind the State’s acknowledgment of facts and acquiescence. VI VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 4,24 5,25 AND 726 (RIGHT TO LIFE, RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT, AND RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) THEREOF 65. The Commission and the representatives alleged that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to life of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, as well as the right to humane treatment and the right to personal liberty of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, Nelly Valle Jaramillo, and Carlos Fernando Valle Jaramillo. Additionally, the representatives asked that 22 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 20, para. 146; Case of Bayarri, supra note 13, para. 38, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 79. 23 Hereafter, this judgment contains facts that the Court finds have been established based on the acknowledgement made by the State. Where additional facts have been established by the probative elements, the Court records this in the corresponding footnote. 24 In this regard, Article 4 establishes that: 1. Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 25 The relevant part of Article 5 establishes that: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 26 The relevant part of Article 7 stipulates that: 1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the Constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto. […]