23 41. On the other hand, the Court, pursuant to Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, accepts the evidence submitted by the representatives regarding the supervening facts after the application was submitted (supra para. 24).10 42. Likewise, the Court deems that the documents submitted by the representatives together with their final written pleadings, with regard to costs and expenses (supra para. 24), are useful, and they will be assessed taking into account the observations made by the State (supra para. 26). 43. With regard to the testimony and expert opinions submitted in writing by means of affidavits before a notary public by the witnesses and expert witnesses offered by the Commission and the representatives and by the State (supra paras. 38.a, 38.b, 38.c, 38.d, 38.e, 38.f, 38.g and 38.h), in accordance with the Order issued by the President on January 31, 2005, the Court admits them insofar as they are in accordance with the object defined in said Order and assesses them in the context of the body of evidence, applying the rules of competent analysis and taking into account the observations submitted by the parties (supra para. 22). In this regard, the statement by Albino Fernández, since he is one of the alleged victims and has a direct interest in this case, cannot be appraised in an isolated manner, but rather in the context of all the evidence in the proceeding. As this Court has stated before, regarding both the merits and reparations, the statements of the alleged victims, as well as those of their next of kin, are useful insofar as they can provide more information on the alleged violations that may have taken place and regarding their consequences.11 44. The Court deems that the documents submitted by the State during the public hearing of the instant case (supra para. 21) are useful to reach a decision in the instant case, together with the documents submitted by expert witness Bartomeu Meliá i Lliteres (supra para. 21), especially because they were neither challenged nor disputed, and their authenticity or truthfulness was not questioned, for which reason this Court includes them in the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 45. The State objected to “the ‘unilateral statement’ of Esteban López, issued before a notary public, with regard to ‘certification’ of the demise of the individuals in whose name he claims compensation,” which was forwarded by the representatives as part of the evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. 26). This Court deems that said statement is useful and will appraise it in the context of the body of evidence, applying the rules of competent analysis and taking into account the observations made by the State. Therefore, it adds that statement to the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 46. Finally, with regard to the press clippings submitted by the parties, this Court has deemed that even though they do not constitute documentary evidence proper, they may be appraised insofar as they reflect publicly known facts, statements made 10 See Case of De La Cruz Flores. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 58; Case of Myrna Mack Chang. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 128; and Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18 2003, Series C No. 100, para. 57. 11 See Case of Caesar, supra note 2, para. 47; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 2, para. 40; and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 2, para. 78.