20 scale report, the documents attesting to the variations in remuneration from 1993 to 2001, and the payrolls of the dismissed employees in the Congress of the Republic of Peru, by occupational categories. He stated that, in order to determine technically the loss of earning and benefits, he had calculated the income and benefits that the dismissed employees would have received if they had continued working in Congress. The resulting information was prepared in accordance with the norms established in general national laws, including payment of legal interest. The amount of interest owing for failure to pay was calculated on the basis of the reports issued by the Office of the Superintendent of Banks and Insurance, which was considered an appropriate criterion. B) ASSESSMENT OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 82. In this case as in others,9 the Court accepts the probative value of the documents presented by the parties at the proper procedural opportunity, which were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned. 83. Regarding the documents forwarded as helpful evidence, clarification and explanation (supra para. 53), the Court incorporates them into the body of evidence in this case, in accordance with Article 45(2) of its Rules of Procedure, taking in account the observations submitted by the parties (supra para. 53). 84. The State contested the sworn statement of the expert witness Noriega Torero, presented by the common intervenors (supra paras. 47 and 81(h)), considering, inter alia, that it “was inexact [... and, also, because this expert witness] was not on the list of list of experts accredited to the Lima Superior Court of Justice, so that if he is not authorized to issue legal expert opinions in Peru, he was even less authorized to do so at a supranational level.” In this regard, the Court admits the opinion of Mr. Noriega Torero to the extent that it complies with the purpose defined in the President’s order of March 17, 2006 (supra para. 44), and assesses it together with the body of evidence, applying the rules of sound criticism and bearing in mind the State’s observations (supra para. 47). 85. The State also contested, in general, the sworn statements of the witnesses proposed by the common intervenors (supra para. 47). In this regard, the Court considers that these statements can help the Court determine the facts in this case to the extent that they comply with the purpose defined in the President’s order of March 17, 2006 (supra para. 44), and therefore assesses them applying the rules of sound criticism and bearing in mind the State’s observations (supra para. 44). The Court also recalls that, as they are alleged victims or their next of kin and have a direct interest in this case, their statements must be assessed together with all the evidence in the case and not in isolation. 86. With regard to the newspaper articles submitted by the parties, the Court has considered that they can be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or declarations of State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case.10 9 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 8, para. 57; Case of Servellón García et al. , supra note 7, para. 38, and Case of Ximenes Lopes. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 44. 10 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. , supra note 3, para. 81; Case of Servellón García et al., supra note 7, para. 50, and Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 9, para. 55.