A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 31. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representative, and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 4 to 11). The Court also received the affidavits prepared by the witnesses Dennis Cerezo Cervantes, Rodolfo Sánchez Jiménez and Luis Humberto Córdova Ramos, and the expert witnesses Hugo Miguel Morán Sánchez, Verónica Valencia and Jaysoon Abarca. As for the evidence provided during the public hearing, the Court listened to the statement of the presumed victim Melba Suárez Peralta and the expert opinion of Laura Pautassi (supra para. 9). B. Admission of the evidence 1. Admission of the documentary evidence 32. In this case, as in others, the Court admits those documents forwarded by the parties at the appropriate procedural opportunity (supra paras. 4 to 11), which were not contested or opposed and the authenticity of which was not questioned. 19 The documents requested by the Court at the public hearing, which were subsequently provided by the parties, are incorporated into the body of evidence in application of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. 33. With regard to the newspaper articles and videos presented by the parties and the Commission together with their different briefs, the Court has considered that these may be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case. Consequently, it decides to admit the documents that are complete or that, at least, allow their source and date of publication to be verified, and will assess them taking into account the entire body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 20 34. In addition, the Court observes that the representative did not provide the affidavits of the witness Eduardo Tigua Castro or the expert witnesses Ignacio Hanna Musse and Iván Castro Patiño, which were offered by the representative of the presumed victims and requested in the Order of the President of December 20, 2012. 21 35. In relation to the documents provided with the final written arguments, the State requested the exclusion of evidence provided by the representative because it was not presented at the proper procedural moment. In this regard, the Court observes that, in particular, the representative forwarded a sworn statement by Moisés Daniel Arguello Bermeo, which had not been requested as useful evidence by a judge or the Court during the public hearing of the case. Therefore, pursuant to Article 57 of its Rules of Procedure, the Court declares inadmissible the presentation of this evidence by the representative, because it was not provided at the appropriate procedural moment. 2. Admission of the statements of the presumed victim and of an expert witness 19 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo, supra, para. 43. 20 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits, supra, para. 146, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo, supra, para. 44. 21 Cf. Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Court of December 20, 2012, supra. 11