11 ecologist and the presumed contributions of the alleged victim to the fight to protect the environment in Honduras; (ii) what he knew of the facts that occurred on February 6, 1995, and the investigation opened into them; (iii) the effects of the death of Blanca Jeannette Kawas on PROLANSATE; and (iv) what he knew about the situation of those who work to defend the environment in Honduras after the death of Blanca Jeannette Kawas. c) Clarisa Vega Molina, former special prosecutor for the environment in Honduras, and expert witness proposed by the representatives. She provided her expert opinion on: (i) environmental conditions in Honduras; (ii) the situation of defenders of the environment in this country; (iii) the alleged general impunity with regard to violations perpetrated against environmentalists in Honduras, and (iv) the difficulties in investigating this type of facts. B) Assessment of the Evidence 39. In this case, as in others,17 the Court accepts the probative value of those documents presented opportunely by the parties, which were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not challenged. In relation to the documents forwarded as helpful evidence (supra para. 11), the Court incorporates them into the body of evidence, in application of the provisions of Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 40. Regarding the statements and expert opinions, the Court finds them pertinent to the extent that they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the Order requiring them (supra para. 9), and they will be examined in the corresponding chapter. The Court finds that the testimonial statements made by the alleged victims cannot be assessed alone, since they have a direct interest in the case; consequently they will be assessed together with all the evidence in the proceedings.18 41. With regard to the documents referring to procedural costs and expenses forwarded by the representatives together with their final written arguments, the Court notes that the State did not oppose the incorporation of this evidence, so that, pursuant to Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure, it incorporates them into the body of evidence because it considers them useful. In addition, it accepts as helpful evidence, those documents forwarded by the representatives and the State with their respective final written arguments, which respond to requests made by the Court during the public hearing held in this case (supra para. 10). The Court will assess all this information applying the rules of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding factual framework. 42. The Court accepts the documents provided by the expert witness during the public hearing, because it finds them useful for this case and, also, they were not opposed and their authenticity and veracity were not challenged. 43. In relation to the newspaper articles forwarded by the parties at the due procedural opportunity, the Court finds that they can be assessed when they refer to well-known public 17 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140; Case of Ríos et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para. 81; and Case of Perozo et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para. 94. 18 Cf. Case of Loayza-Tamayo V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Ríos et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para. 89; and Case of Perozo et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para. 103.