11 “well-known to the public”. Having laid down the remaining dispute in the instant case (supra para. 16), the Court will assess the press documents insofar as they refer to public and notorious facts or to statements made by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the instant case18 that are proven by other means19. 39. With regard to the testimonies and the expert opinion, the Court deems them relevant insofar as they conform to the object defined in the Order of the President in which he requested the submission of the said declarations (supra para. 7). The Court also accepts the affidavits of Ms. Jessica Marlene Baque Rodríguez and Mr. Ubaldo Aquilino Angulo Plaza, submitted respectively by the Commission and the representatives, insofar as they prove to be useful in order to determine the facts of the instant case, taking into account that the parties’ right to defense has been guaranteed and that no objection has been made in this regard. 40. The Court considers that the testimonies given by the alleged victims or their family members cannot be assessed separately since they have a direct interest in the outcome of the case. Therefore, the testimonies of the alleged victims’ family members will be assessed within the whole body of evidence in the proceedings20. * * * 41. Having examined the evidentiary elements incorporated into the case file of the instant case, the declarations of the parties, as well as the partial acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State (supra para. 8-31), the Court will proceed with the analysis of the alleged violations in the instant case, in light of the acknowledged facts and those that the Court deems proven21 in each corresponding chapter. The Court will also consider the parties’ legal arguments which analysis prove to be relevant, taking into account the partial acknowledgement of liability made by the State. VI Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.), supra note 15, para. 75. See also Case of Bueno Alves, supra note 8, para. 46, and Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 7, para. 59. 18 19 Cf. Case of Bueno Alves, supra note 8, para. 46, and Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 7, para. 59. Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 14, para. 70. See also Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 7, para. 60, and Case of La Cantuta, supra note 7, para. 64. 20 Hereinafter, the instant Judgment contains facts that this tribunal deems proven on the grounds of the aknowledgement of facts and responsibility made by the State, in the order and with the relevant precisions with regard to the facts presented in the application. Some of these facts have been completed with other evidentiary elements, in which case the corresponding footnotes are included. 21