20 47. The Court considers the documents submitted by the representatives in their written closing arguments helpful for the adjudication of the instant case, inasmuch as they have not been disputed or challenged, nor has their authenticity or truthfulness been questioned. Therefore, they are incorporated into the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure.7 48. As regards the press copy submitted in the application, the brief containing pleadings and motions and the written closing arguments, this Court has found that they could be assessed to the extent they give an account of publicly available and well-known facts or statements by State officials, or they corroborate aspects relating to the instant case.8 Testimonial and Expert Evidence Assessment 49. As part of the expert evidence received on April 21, 2005 (supra para. 44), the State offered the testimony of Raquel Rocío Gásperi-Arellano. Taking into account the objections raised by the Commission and the representatives thereto, the President, in Order dated May 25, 2005, provided that Gásperi-Arellano appear at the public hearing to be held as from June 25, 2005 to render testimony as a lay witness rather than as an expert witness, given that the purpose of the hearing was related to certain points of fact raised in the instant case. On June 8, 2005, Venezuela submitted the list of persons that would represent the State at the aforementioned hearing, in which Raquel Rocío Gásperi was included. Therefore, the representatives pointed out that Gásperi-Arellano could not act in the double capacity of witness and agent of the State. In view of this situation, the Court issued an Order on June 16, 2005, stating that the last decision expressed by the State was for Gásperi-Arellano to be part of the delegation that would represent it at the public hearing; therefore, the Court decided that the abovementioned person was barred from giving testimony at such hearing. 50. Regarding the testimony given by the witnesses proposed by the InterAmerican Commission and the representatives and the reports rendered by the expert witness proposed by the representatives (supra para. 42), the Court admits them to the extent they conform to the subject-matter set forth in the Order of the Court issued on May 25, 2005, and recognizes their evidentiary value, taking into account the acquiescence of the State to the claim. This Court believes that the statements made by Alejandra Josefina Iriarte de Blanco and Nélida Josefina Fernández-Pelicie must be assessed as a whole with the rest of the body of evidence in the case rather than separately since, being related to two of the alleged victims, they have a direct interest in the instant case. VI Proven Facts 7 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 89; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 1, para. 42; and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 46. 8 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 79; Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico, supra note 2, para. 96; and Case of Yatama. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 119.