24 4) Marlon Alberto Weichert, witness proposed by the Commission and the representatives. Declared on: a) the reach and interpretation of the Brazilian Amnesty Law; b) the other obstacles that allegedly were used in Brazilian law to prevent the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of serious human rights violations, and c) the obstacles and restrictions which allegedly affected the right to access to information in Brazil; 5) Belisário dos Santos,51 witness proposed by the representatives. Declared on: a) the alleged legal and juridical obstacles in the litigation of the cases of political prisoners, dealing with facts that took place during the Brazilian military regime; b) the barriers allegedly faced by the Special Commission in attempts to access official documents in State custody and in the search and delivery of the bodily remains of the alleged disappeared victims; c) the judgment of proceedings and the payment of compensation by the Special Commission, and d) the activities of the Monitoring Committee of the Tocantins Working Group; 6) José Gregori, witness proposed by the State. Declared on the importance of the activities of the Special Commission on Political Deaths and Disappearances of Persons and the historical context of Law No. 9.140/95; 7) José Paulo Sepúvelda Pertence, witness proposed by the State. Declared on: a) the historical context of the elaboration and promulgation of the Amnesty Law, and b) of its alleged contribution to the national reconciliation process during the time of its promulgation. 8) Rodrigo Uprimny, professor, expert on transitional justice, expert witness proposed by the Commission. Rendered an expert report on: a) the eventual impact on the current Brazilian society caused by the unawareness of the historical truth of its past and the serious human rights violations which occurred during the military regime, and b) the possible consequences of this, and 9) Gilson Langaro Dipp, Minister of the Superior Court of Justice, former National Ombudsman of Justice, expert proposed by the State. Rendered an expert report on the “Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental” under the Brazilian legal system. B. Assessment of documental evidence 54. In the present case, as in others,52 the Court admits the evidentiary value of said documents submitted by the parties at the opportune procedural moment that were neither contradicted, objected to, nor their authenticity questioned. 55. In relation to articles or academic texts, the Court has noted previously that are written works that contain declarations or affirmations by their authors for public dissemination. In this sense, the assessment of their content is not subject to the required formalities of testimonial evidence. Nevertheless, their 51 Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”). Reconsideration, supra note 47, Considering clauses 18 to 22 and Operative Paragraph 2. 52 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 25, para. 140; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 45, para. 31, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 42.