9 documents processed before the Secretariat of the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Commission in order to obtain the financial support that would allow him to afford the price of the ticket to Costa Rica and lodging expenses there. 43. The State objected to some evidentiary items filed by the Commission together with its application “as [their] authenticity had not been proven,” as well as to all the evidence submitted by the applicant. In general, the evidence that was questioned consisted of documents referring to Mr. Bueno-Alves’ health condition; receipts of travelling expenses; copies of some documents attached to case files No. 24.519 and No. 25.314 in Magistrate’s Courts No. 30 and No. 21, respectively; briefs addressed to authorities of the Argentinean State and the Organization of American States; accounting instruments; and newspaper articles. Similarly, the State objected to some evidentiary items submitted by the representative (supra para. 42). Thus, it pointed out that the evidence attached (supra para. 42(ii)), “outreaches the purpose of the consultation and addresse[s], in an inadmissible manner, other aspects of the answer to [the] application filed by the State.” It also objected to the documents submitted in relation to the suspicious death of Oberlander (supra para. 42(iii)), arguing that “those assumptions […] have no apparent bearing on the submitted evidence under examination;” and it further objected to the evidence of the alleged admission of Mr. Bueno-Alves (supra para. 42(v)) to a health center, as “it is not clear whether hospitalization was merely a recommendation made by a health professional […], or he was actually hospitalized.” On the other hand, the State raised objections to the statements submitted by the representative. 44. In this regard the Court points out, in the first place, that part of the evidence furnished by the Commission, the authenticity of which has been questioned, consists of documents submitted in a proceeding started before Argentinean courts. The Court finds no reason to acknowledge the evidentiary value thereof. 45. With regard to the additional evidence submitted in the instant case (supra para. 42), the Court considers that said information may contribute to the determination by the Court of the facts described in this instant case, since they clarify certain aspects related to the context of the case, the search for justice, and the claims of the representative regarding reparations. The same considerations are to be made regarding the testimonial statements and expert reports offered by the representative. Therefore, the Court considers it convenient to assess this information on the basis of sound judgment, within the applicable legal framework, taking into consideration the observations filed by the State. 46. Regarding the press documents submitted by the parties, the Court considers that they may be assessed insofar as they refer to public and notorious facts or statements made by State officials which have not been rectified, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case19 and evidenced by other means. 47. Now, regarding the information submitted by the representative in relation to Alejandro Oberlander’ s death as occurring “in suspicious circumstances,” the representative has not presented, beyond assumptions, sufficient arguments that somewhat link this death to the facts of the instant case, or that even link the State with said occurrence. Therefore, the Court considers that said information is not related to the purpose or object of the instant case and, consequently, it will not be taken into consideration. Thus, the request 19 Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 14, para. 62, and Case of Nogueira-Carvalho et al., supra note 17, para. 65, and Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.) Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 86.