36 instant case (supra para. 27).15 114. The State objected to a document presented by the representatives as “new evidence in the proceedings” (supra para. 35), which consists of the resolution of the Nicaraguan Ombudsman of March 3, 2005, file No. 217/00, concerning the “complaint filed by the […] legal representative of […] YATAMA” on August 24, 2000. The State indicated, inter alia, that “it is inconceivable that State institutions, such as the Office of the Ombudsman[...] can intervene at their own discretion, against the interests of the State at the international level,” which “implies evident disloyalty to the State.” Despite this, but bearing in mind the State’s objections, the Court admits it, applying the rules of sound criticism and assessing this document together with the body of evidence, because it is a resolution that relates to the facts of the instant case, issued by a Nicaraguan State institution on March 3, 2005. Therefore, the Court adds it to the body of evidence pursuant to Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure, as it has done in a similar case.16 115. With regard to the testimonial statements and the written expert evidence given before notary public (affidavits), as required by the President in an order of January 28, 2005 (supra para. 28), the Court admits them to the extent that they correspond to the purpose established in the said order and assesses them with the body of evidence, applying the rules of sound criticism and bearing mind the comments made by the State (supra para. 33). The Court accepts the waiver of the representatives to present, in an affidavit, the expert evidence of Manuel Alcántara Sáez (supra para. 30). 116. In relation to the sworn statements that were not made before notary public by the witnesses, Nancy Elizabeth Henríquez James and Eklan James Molina, proposed by the Commission and endorsed by the representatives (supra paras. 28 and 30), the Court admits them and assesses them with the body of evidence, applying the rules of sound criticism and bearing mind the State’s objections. On other occasions, the Court has admitted sworn statements that were not made before notary public, when this does not affect the legal certainty and the procedural equality of the parties.17 As the Court has indicated, the statements of the alleged victims can provide useful information on the alleged violations and their consequences.18 117. The State contested the sworn statement of the expert witness, Roberto Courtney Cerda, presented by the Commission on February 23, 2005 (supra para. 31), owing “to his impossibility” of providing his expert evidence in person during the public hearing. The State indicated, inter alia, that this sworn statement was time-barred and omitted “elementary formalities,” and also that Mr. Courtney Cerda “had not provided his expert evidence in accordance with the order” of the President. In this regard, the 15 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 10, para. 37; Case of De la Cruz Flores. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 58; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 10, para. 50. 16 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 10, para. 42. 17 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 10, para. 39; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 11, para. 82; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 10, para. 58. 18 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 10, para. 40; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 11, para. 78; and Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, para. 71.