V COMPETENCE 37. The Court is competent to hear this case in the terms of Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Peru has been a State party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. Furthermore, the State ratified the Inter-American Convention against Torture on March 28, 1991, and the Convention of Belém do Pará on June 4, 1996. VI EVIDENCE 38. Based on the provisions of Articles 50, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law with regard to evidence and its assessment, 32 the Court will examine and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded by the parties at different procedural opportunities, the statements, testimony and expert opinions provided by affidavit or during the public hearing before the Court, as well as the helpful evidence requested by the Court and incorporated ex officio (supra para. 12 and infra para. 45). To this end, the Court will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework. 33 A) Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 39. This Court received different documents presented as evidence by the Inter-American Commission, the representative, and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 1, 6 and 7). The Court also received the affidavits prepared by the witnesses Klemens Felder, Susan Pitt, Martin Rademacher, Nancy de la Cruz Chamilco, Pablo Talavera Elguera and Ana María Mendieta, and also the proposed expert witnesses José María Asencio Mellado, Miguel Ángel Soria Fuerte, and Eduardo Alcócer Povis. In the case of the evidence provided during the public hearing, the Court listened to the statements of J.’s sister, and of witness Magda Victoria Atto Mendives, deponent for 34 information purposes Federico Javier Llaque Moya, and expert witness Patricia Viseur Sellers. B) Admission of the evidence B.1 Admission of the documentary evidence 40. In this case, as in others, the Court grants probative value to those documents presented by the parties and the Commission at the appropriate time that were not contested or opposed, and authenticity of which was not challenged. 35 41. With regard to the newspaper articles presented by the parties and the Commission together with their different briefs, this Court has considered that these may be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related 32 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 al 76, and Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2013. Series C No. 266, para. 30. 33 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 76, and Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 267, para. 45. 34 The Order of the acting President of April 16, 2013, established the purpose of this testimony (supra footnote 7). 35 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 12. 14