10 43. The Court admits the documents sent by the representatives on December 1 and 11, 2006, regarding the “certifications of the police records” of Messrs. Chaparro and Lapo, and also the documentation forwarded by the State together with its final arguments brief because, although this documentation was produced after the principal briefs had been remitted (supra paras. 1 and 5), it was not opposed, and its authenticity and truth were not contested. 44. Regarding the documents forwarded by the State on September 12 and 17, 2007 (supra para. 10), the Court reiterates that, according to Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure, “[i]tems of evidence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if […] contained in the application and in the reply thereto.” Nevertheless, it considers that these documents are useful to decide the instant case and will assess them together with the whole body of evidence and taking into account the observations of the parties. 45. Regarding the newspaper Articles submitted by the parties, the Court considers that they can be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or non-rectified declarations of State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case and are authenticated by other means.22 46. Regarding the testimonies and expert opinions, the Court considers they are pertinent when they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the Order in which he instructed that they should be received (supra para. 8), taking into account the observations submitted by the parties. The Court considers that the testimonial statements made by the alleged victims must be assessed together with all the evidence in the case and not in isolation, since the victims have a direct interest in the case.23 47. Having examined the probative elements in the case file, the Court will now examine the alleged violations, considering the facts that have been acknowledged and those that will be proved24 in the respective chapter. The Court will also examine the allegations of the parties that it deems pertinent, bearing in mind the acknowledgment of the facts and the State’s acquiescence. VII ARTICLE 7 (RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY)25 IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) 22 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 20, para. 146; Case of La Cantuta, supra note 16, para. 62, and Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 28. 23 Cf. Case of the “White Van“ (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 70; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 20, para. 44 and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 13, para. 40. 24 Hereafter, this judgment contains facts that the Court finds have been established based on the State’s acquiescence. Some of these facts have been complemented with probative elements, in which case, the respective footnotes are included. 25 The relevant provisions of Article 7 of the Convention establish: 1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto. 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. 4. Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him.