25 evidentiary value depends on whether they corroborate or refer to issues related to the specific case.53 56. In regard to the press releases, this Court has considered that they may be valued when they discuss facts of a public and notorious nature or declarations of State officials, or when they corroborate issues related to the case.54 The Court decides to admit the documents that are complete or that at least allow the Court to identify their source and the date of publication, and assess them in consideration with all of the body of evidence, the observations of the State, and the rules of sound judgment. 57. Moreover, the Court adds those decisions and documents to the body of evidence, in application of Article 47(1) of the Rules of Procedure given that it considers them useful in resolving the case. 58. Subsequent to the response to the application, on May 6, 2010, the State reported to the Court that on April 29, 2010, the Federal Supreme Court ruled the inadmissibility of the Non-compliance Action of the Fundamental Principle No. 153 and confirmed, by seven to two votes, the domestic validity of the Amnesty Law. Brazil indicated that said decision constituted a new supervening fact in the terms of Article 46(3) of the applicable Rules of Procedure which substantially alters the procedural instructions carried out to date, and requested that the votes of four Ministers of the Federal Supreme Court that accompanied the decision be submitted as evidence. 59. The Court considers that the decision of the Federal Supreme Tribunal of the State that affirms the constitutionality of the Amnesty Law is related to the facts of the present case. As a consequence, the Court admits, as supervening evidence of the facts, the documents provided by the State in the terms of Article 46(3) of the Rules of Procedure, and considers, where applicable, the information therein. 60. On its behalf, the Court admits, as an exception, the documents rendered by the parties at various procedural moments because it finds said documents to be relevant and useful for the determination of the facts and the eventual legal consequences, without precluding the considerations made below. 61. The Inter-American Commission presented with its final arguments, documents submitted by the expert Uprimny in relation to his expert report before the Tribunal. The State noted that there is no rule of procedure regarding the possibility of complementing an expert testimony rendered in the public hearing. Moreover, it argued that said documents do not refer to facts related to the proceedings nor to alleged force majeure, serious impediment, or supervening facts, and as such the documents offered are inadmissible and timebarred. 62. The Court recalls that the documents related to the expert report of the expert witness Uprimny were offered in response to a request by the Court during the public hearing, and as such, the Court will incorporate said documents into the body of evidence of the present case pursuant to Article 47 of the Rules of 53 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 24, para. 72; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of 30 de agosto de 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 33, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 45, para. 34. 54 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 25, para. 146; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 45, para. 35, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 18, para. 43.