53 104. Furthermore, in its final written arguments, the State indicated that the annexes to the application containing documents produced by various US Government agencies “are unsigned; produced unilaterally, for purposes of which we are unaware, and for a country other than our own”, and therefore, it requested the Court to reject them. 105. With regard to the documents attributed to the Central Intelligence Agency and other US agencies, which the Commission annexed to the application in this case (supra 1), the Court has confirmed that they lack authentication, present defects and do not comply with the minimum formal requirements for admissibility as it is impossible to precisely establish their source, and also the procedure by which they were obtained. Those circumstances prevent these documents from being granted value as evidence. 106. The other documents that the Commission presented with the application were not contested or objected to, nor was their authenticity doubted, and the Court therefore admits them as valid. 107. As for the newspaper cuttings contributed by the Commission, this Court has considered that, although they are not real documentary evidence, they could be taken into consideration when they cover public or well-known facts, or declarations of State officials or when they corroborate what has been established in other documents or testimonies received during the proceeding58. Consequently, the Court adds them to the probative evidence as an appropriate way of verifying the truth of the facts of the case, in conjunction with all the other evidence presented. 108. The statements made before a Notary and presented by the Commission should be admitted. On the one hand, because they constitute evidence produced by the Commission in March 1998, subsequent to the submission of the application (August 1996) and, on the other, because this Court has discretional powers to evaluate statements or declarations that are presented to it, either orally or by any other means. However, the Court observes that, since the requirements established in Articles 43 and ff. of the Rules of Procedure were not fulfilled, this Court cannot admit them as testimonial evidence and decides to incorporate them to the probative evidence in this case as documentary evidence59. 109. With regard to the reports of the Inter-Diocesan Recovery of the Historical Memory Project and the Commission for Historical Clarification, they were offered as supervening evidence by the Commission, in accordance with Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure, and the State expressly accepted their incorporation into the probative evidence, so the Court incorporates them as documentary evidence. * * * 110. With regard to the documentary evidence that the State presented on December 4, 1998 (supra 56), the Commission placed “on written record its objection to the inclusion of various documents brought to the public hearing [of November 22 and 23, 1998] by the witnesses as evidence for the case file”, since they are documents prior to the application and the State has not alleged force majeure, serious impediment or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for admitting such evidence. 111. On December 10, 1998, the President informed the Commission that he would forward to the Commission any document sent by the State so that it could make the pertinent observations. On January 12, 1999, the Commission repeated the objection set out in its brief of December 4 (supra 58). This objection was reiterated by the Commission in its final written arguments, in which it also indicated that “most of the documents offered by Guatemala are dated between 1992 and April 1996, prior to the submission of the application in this case to the Court. The few exceptions are certifications from 1998 that refer to events that occurred in previous years”. It stated that documentary evidence must be offered before the public hearings, so as to be able to question the witnesses about such documents. Lastly, the Commission observed that the State had not complied with the Court's request, according to between the Army and the Luis Ixmatá Front in Nuevo San Carlos, in which Comandante Everardo was injured. He saw a man who appeared to be Bámaca Velásquez at the Santa Ana Berlín military base, and this was confirmed by Sosa Orellana. It appeared that the Army killed a soldier named Cristóbal Che Pérez in order to simulate that his body was that of Bámaca Velásquez. He deserted the Guatemalan armed forces after an attempt had been made on his life and, subsequently, went to the United States. 58 Cf. Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra note 50, para. 75; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, supra note 53, para. 145; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 53, para. 152 and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, para. 146. 59 Cf. Castillo Páez Case. Reparations, supra note 56, paras. 40-42; and Loayza Tamayo Case. Reparations, supra note 56, paras. 54-60.