22 75. In addition, with regard to the observations about the content of the statements, the Court will take into consideration the claims of the parties (supra paras. 69 to 71) and will assess the statements only to the extent that they refer to the purpose required in the Order of the President and in conjunction with the other elements of the body of evidence. 76. Regarding the newspaper Articles presented by the parties, the Court has considered that they can be assessed when they refer to well-know public facts or declarations of State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case.62 77. After examining the probative elements in the case file, the Court will decide who are the alleged victims in the instant case, and will examine the alleged violations of the American Convention in accordance with the proven facts and the arguments of the parties. VI DETERMINATION OF THE PRESUMED VICTIMS 78. In the application brief the Commission concluded that “the State incurred international responsibility for [human rights] violations to the detriment of Arle[i] José Escher, Dalton Luciano de Vargas, Delfino José Becker, Pedro Alves Cabral, Celso Aghinoni and Eduardo Aghinoni,” members of the organizations COANA and ADECON.63 79. In their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives presented a list of thirtyfour individuals who, in their opinion, were the presumed victims in this case.64 They stated that, owing to the confidential nature of the telephone interception and recording procedure established in Act No. 9,296/96, “at no time, during the proceedings before the [Commission], had they identified the [presumed] victims of the violations by naming them[, since] in 2000, when the petition was submitted, the petitioner organizations did not know the scope of the illegal telephone interceptions [and] all the people whose telephone conversations had been intercepted and recorded by the Military Police of the state of Paraná. [They merely knew] of a small group of members and leaders of COANA and ADECON whose telephone calls had been intercepted because their conversations were disseminated in the local and national newspapers […]. It was only in 2004 [… that they] were able to learn about and have access to all the transcripts of the recordings.” 80. The State disagreed with the inclusion of presumed victims other than those indicated in the application brief, who had not been mentioned in the proceedings before the Commission. 62 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 54, para. 146; Case of Perozo et al., supra note 18, para. 101, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 35, para. 43. 63 The Commission issued its Reports on Admissibility and Merits with regard to Arlei José Escher, Dalton Luciano de Vargas, Delfino José Becker, Pedro Alves Cabral, Celso Aghinoni and Eduardo Aghinoni. Cf. Report on Admissibility No. 18/06 of March 2, 2006, supra note 26, folio 48, and Report on Merits No. 14/07 of March 8, 2007 (File of attachments to the application, tome I, appendix 1, folio 40). 64 The representatives named the following persons as alleged victims: 1) Antonio Carlos Morete, 2) Arlei Jose Escher, 3) Avanilson Alves Araújo, 4) Dalto Luciano de Vargas, 5) Dilo Angelin Kerber, 6) Dirceu Luiz Bouflewer, 7) Dominique M. Guhur, 8) Edson Marcos Bragnara, 9) Elson Borges dos Santos, 10) Francisco Strozake, 11) Gilmar Mauro Hugo, 12) Francisco Gomes, 13) Isabel Cristina Diniz, 14) Ivanir Murinelli, 15) Jacques Pellenz, 16) Jaime Dutra Coelho, 17) Jaime Matter, 18) John Caruana, 19) José Adalberto Maschio, 20) José Aparecido da Silva, 21) José Juveni Silva Santos, 22) Jose Lino Warmling, 23) Josinaldo da Silva Veiga, 24) Maria de Fátima dos Santos, 25) Marli Brambilla Kappaum, 26) Roberto Baggio, 27) Rogerio Antonio Mauro, 28) Rosiany Maria da Silva, 29) Sandra Mara Oliveira Soares Escher, 30) Teresa Cofré, 31) Valdir Braun, 32) Valmir Fischborn, 33) Vanderlei Braun and 34) Zenildo Megiatto. Cf. Pleadings and motions brief (merits file, tome I, folios 358 and 359).