10 b) Jorge González Izquierdo, an expert witness proposed by the State, who provided an expert witness report on: i) “the economic-labor situation in Peru during the years 1991 and 1992”; ii) the implications of this situation “as far the suspension of salary indexing”; iii) “subsequent effects on methods of regulating salaries, regulating the labor market in Peru during the 90s, increasing salaries in Peru as of the 90s,” and iv) the implications of all this for the resolution of the dispute between the parties over the situation of the 233 victims in this case. 37. In addition, during the public hearing, the Court heard the testimony of: a) Víctor Hugo de los Santos León, a witness proposed by the State, who testified on: i) “the application of Law Decree No. 25876, specifying as of when it was applied and the implications it had for workers;” ii) “the way in which SEDAPAL gradually applied the salary scale adjustment for the workers;” iii) “the way in which CONADE authorized the salary regulation,” and iv) how “SEDAPAL set up a new salary structure as of 1994 that included the modified scales.” 2. Admission of documentary evidence 38. In this case, as in others,20 the Court accepts the evidentiary value of the documents presented by the parties at the proper procedural opportunity that were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned. 39. On presenting his brief of pleadings and motions, the representative submitted as annexes the statements given before a public notary by 132 of the alleged victims. The representative also attached the expert testimony of Mrs. Lily Isabel Albornoz Castro on “the way in which the [r]eparation amounts for [m]aterial [d]amages of the [233 alleged v]ictims [in this case] have been calculated.” Similarly, upon filing its answer to the application, the State attached as an annex “expert testimony on the size of monetary reparations” presented by Félix Aquije Soler. In accordance with the Order to convene a hearing in the present case, the Court reiterates that such statements only have the character of documentary evidence and, in that sense, will be assessed within the context of the existing evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment21. 40. As far as the press releases presented by the parties, this Court has found that they can be admitted when they contain public and noteworthy facts or statements from State officials, or when they corroborate certain aspects of the case.22 Consequently, the Court will weigh them, taking into account the whole of the body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judgment. 41. During the course of the public hearing, expert witness De Los Santos León submitted a copy of a document identified as “Salary Scales,” presented as a PowerPoint presentation when he gave his testimony. On finding these useful for the resolution of that with regard to the other 48, the Commission granted them the status of alleged victims without having to exhaust remedies in the domestic jurisdiction. To your understanding, can it be argued with regard to these 48 workers that the State did not provide effective judicial protection if they did not exhaust the domestic jurisdiction?” In the same note, the Secretariat noted that the representative did not submit questions for the expert witnesses Abad Yupanqui and González Izquierdo. 20 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140; Case of Gomes Lund et al “Guerrilha do Araguaia”, supra note 17, para. 51, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 17, para. 27. 21 22 Order of the Acting President in this case, supra note 6, folios 363 to 374. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez supra note 20, para. 146; Case of Vélez Loor, supra note 12, para. 76, and Case of Gomes Lund et al “Guerrilha do Araguaia”, supra note 17, para. 56.