9 disappearance and the alleged lack of justice have had in her personal and family life, and C) José Pablo Baraybar do Carmo, expert witness proposed by the representatives and member of the Peruvian Team of Forensic Anthropology [EPAF]. He gave an expert opinion about, inter alia, the assessment that such organization made in relation to the report prepared by the forensic police about the incinerator located in the basements of the Army Intelligence Service, as well as other forensic aspects related to the investigation of the case and the necessary measures to repair the damage from the field of his specialization. B) Evidence Assessment 24. In the case at hand, as in many other cases,11 the Court admits the evidentiary value of such documents timely forwarded by the parties that have not been disputed nor challenged, or its authenticity questioned. 25. Regarding the press clippings submitted by the parties, at the appropriate procedural opportunity, this Tribunal considers that they may have evidentiary value insofar as they refer to public and notorious facts or statements made by state officials or when they corroborate aspects related to the case12 and evidenced by other means.13 26. With respect to the testimonies and expert’s opinions, the Court consider they are relevant inasmuch as they adjust to the purpose defined by the President in the Order requesting them (supra para. 7), which shall be assessed in the corresponding chapter. As to the statements rendered by the alleged victims, such statements shall not be assessed separately for they have a direct interest in the outcome of the case and therefore, they must be assessed as a whole with the rest of the body of evidence of the proceeding.14 27. The State requested not to consider the expert opinion rendered by José Pablo Baraybar Do Carmo to be valid given the fact that it deems that the expert witness made a mere appraisal, without scientific rigor, and that he did not base his statements on a direct or truth fact.15 11 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1998. Series C No. 4, para. 140; case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller��) V. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, para. 26; Case of Reverón Trujillo V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 29. 12 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 11, para. 146; Case of “White Van" (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C, Nº 37, para. 75; Case of Escher et al. V. Brazil, supra note 6, para. 76; case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller”) V. Peru. Supra note 11, para. 39. 13 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 59; Case of Escher et al. V. Brazil, supra note 6, para. 76; case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller”) V. Peru. Supra note 11, para. 39 14 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C. Nº 33, para. 43; case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller”) V. Peru. Supra note 11, para. 27; Case of Kawas Fernández V. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 40.