granting these opinions probative value.” The State also presented observations on the assessment that should be made of the testimony for information purposes of Carlos Bacigalupo Salinas, specifically that “under no circumstances, can [his statement] have the persuasive power of an expert opinion,” and on the coherence, consistency and exactitude of the content of his statement and also that of expert witness Federico Andreu Guzmán. The Court will take these observations into account when assessing this evidence while examining the merits of the case. 73. On December 12, 2013, the representatives forwarded a video identified as a “10minute spot” as an attachment to the affidavit of Juan Francisco Lanao Anzola. The State objected to the admission of this attachment, considering it time-barred. The Court notes that the time limit for the forwarding of the affidavit expired on November 7, 2013, as established in the Order of the President of October 16, 2013. Therefore, the Court finds that the said video is inadmissible due to its late presentation. C. Assessment of the evidence 74. Based on Articles 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its consistent case law concerning evidence as its assessment, 78 the Court will examine and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded by the parties and the Commission, the statements, testimony, and expert opinions, and also the helpful evidence requested and incorporated by this Court in order to establish the facts of this case and to rule on the merits. To this end, it will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework, taking into account the whole body of evidence and all the arguments presented in the case. 79 75. Regarding the videos presented by the representatives and the Commission, the Court will assess their content in the context of the body of evidence and applying the rules of sound judicial discretion. 80 Also, as regards articles or texts referring to events related to the case, the Court considers that these have been published and contain statements or affirmations by their authors for public distribution. Accordingly, the assessment of their contents is not subject to the formalities required of testimonial evidence. However, their probative value will depend on whether they corroborate or refer to aspects related to this specific case. 81 76. Furthermore, in keeping with this Court’s case law, the statements made by the presumed victims cannot be assessed in isolation, but only together with all the evidence in the proceedings, to the extent that they may provide further information on the presumed violations and their consequences. 82 78 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 to 76, and Case of Tarazona Arrieta et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 15, 2014. Series C No. 286, para. 28. 79 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76, and Case of Tarazona Arrieta et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 15, 2014. Series C No. 286, para. 28. 80 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 93, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 40. 81 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 72, and Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 271, para. 38. 82 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 49. 30