other parties.41 With regard to the videos presented by the representatives, which were not contested, and the authenticity of which was not challenged, the Court will assess their contents in the context of the body of evidence and applying the rules of sound judicial discretion. 42 47. Regarding articles or texts in which events relating to this case are indicated, the Court considers that these are written works that contain declarations or statements of their authors for public consumption. Thus the assessment of their contents is not subject to the formalities required by testimonial evidence. However, their probative value will depend on whether they corroborate or refer to aspects of this specific case. 43 B.1. Documentary evidence submitted after the motions and arguments brief and the answering brief 48. On September 11, 2012, the representatives forwarded a judicial decision issued by the Eighth Court of the Bogota Special Circuit of August 23, 2012,44 concerning what they considered a supervening fact, because it occurred after the presentation of the motions and arguments brief. Both the Commission and the State45 asked that this evidence be incorporated into the case file. Consequently, in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court considers it in order to admit this documentation as it refers to facts that occurred after the presentation of the motions and arguments brief, and that, in addition, are relevant in order to decide this case. 49. On February 7, 2013, the State sent the Court a note from the Prosecutor General’s Office with a report dated February 6, 2013, by the 44th Prosecutor delegated to the Superior Court of the Justice and Peace Unit as well as the “clips” of the voluntary confessions of four demobilized members of the “Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia” (hereinafter “the FARC”) that had been made on January 29 and February 5, 2013. The State asked that this information and the voluntary confessions be admitted as evidence in the proceedings. The Commission and the representatives did not contest the admission of this documentation as supervening evidence. Consequently, in keeping with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court considers it in order to admit this information and documentation, because it could relate to the facts of this case, and was produced after the submission of the answering brief. The evidence presented will be assessed together with the body of evidence and as pertinent to this case. 50. On September 27, 2012, the representatives presented a brief in which they included: (a) information relating to possible mechanisms implemented in order to generate confusion and tension in the region that could affect the international processing of the case”; and also regarding (b) “a dangerous situation that the victims are currently facing,” and (c) “the 41 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 26, and Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile, para. 49. 42 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 93, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, para. 56. 43 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 72, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 37. 44 The decision issued refers to the judgment in which General Rito Alejo del Rio was declared criminally responsible for the murder of Marino López Mena. Eighth Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit, file 2009-063, defendant: Rito Alejo del Río, judgment of August 23, 2012. 45 In this regard, the State indicated that “the first instance judgment handed down by the Eighth Court of the Bogota Special Circuit on August 23, 2012, is a useful informative document to know the progress made and developments in a criminal proceeding related to the facts in dispute in the case of López et al. (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia” and asked the Court “that this judicial decision be admitted into the international case file and, consequently, be assessed based on criteria of sound judicial discretion and together with the rest of the documentary evdence opportunely provided by the parties to the international proceedings.” 17