57 Assessment of Documentary Evidence 188. In this case, as in others18, the Tribunal admits the probative value of the documents presented in a timely fashion by the parties on their procedural opportunity, or as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case that were not disputed or objected, and whose authenticity was not questioned. Likewise, in application of Article 44(2) of the Rules of Procedure, includes the evidence offered before the Commission, as long as they have been received in procedures carried out with the presence of all parties. Specifically, it includes the statements offered under oath by Mrs. Mónica Feria Tinta and Avelina García Calderón Orozco during the public hearing on the merits celebrated before the Commission on November 14, 2001, taking into account that the State expressed that it did not have observations in this sense (supra para. 62). 189. With regard to the written statements given by the witnesses Michael Stephen Bronstein, Edith Tinta, Rubeth Feria Tinta, Luz Liliana Peralta Saldarriaga, Osilia Ernestina Cruzatt widow of Juárez, Eva Sofía Challco Hurtado, Luis F. Jiménez, Raul Basilio Gil Orihuela, Jesús Ángel Julcarima Antonio, Nieves Miriam Rodríguez Peralta, Cesar Mamani Valverde, Alfredo Poccorpachi Vallejos, and Madelein Escolástica Valle Rivera, as well as by the experts Christopher Birkbeck, José Quiroga, and Ana Deutsch (supra paras. 73, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, and 99) the Court considers them relevant since they adjust to the object that was defined by the Tribunal in the Ruling in which it ordered that they be received (supra para. 65), taking into account the observations presented by the Commission (supra paras. 85, 94, and 97) and by the intervener (supra para. 98). On other occasions the Tribunal has admitted sworn statements that were not offered before a notary public, when this does not affect legal certainty and the procedural balance between the parties.19 Likewise, the Court accepts the waiver made by the Commission regarding the presentation of the written statement of Mr. Wilfredo Pedraza (supra para. 85). 190. In application of that stated in Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court includes in the body of evidence the documents presented by the Commission, by the intervener, and by another group of representatives different to the common intervener (supra paras. 47, 48, 93, 101, 102, 104. 105, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, and 128) in response to the requests made by the President and the Court. 191. The Court adds to the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure and because it considers them useful in deciding this case, the documentation presented by the intervener at the end of the public hearing held on the 26th and 27th days of June 2006 (supra para. 93), those presented as appendixes to the final written arguments (supra paras. 103, 105, 106, 120, and 121), and those forwarded by the the group of representatives of alleged victims through the intervener and the Commission (supra paras. 53 and 103) taking into account the observations made by the intervener (supra para. 110) and the Commission (supra para. 113). 18 Cfr. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 15, para. 74; Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 5, para. 57; and Case of Servellón García et al., supra note 3, para. 38. Cfr. Case of Servellón García et al., supra note 3, para. 46; Case of Claude Reyes et al. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 51; and Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 52. 19