27 b) Gabriela Margarita Perozo Cabrices, alleged victim and witness proposed by the representatives, works for the Investigation Department of Globovisión. She rendered a statement, inter alia, regarding the physical and verbal insults she and her team endured when covering the news of November 22, 2001, as well as other intimidation acts and events by which she was refused the access to information. Furthermore, the described the consequences that said events have had in her personal life and the exercise of her profession. c) Omar Solórzano, expert witness proposed by the State; he is a lawyer and worked at the Ombudsman Office between 2002 and 2005. He stated, inter alia, about several demonstrations and concentrations carried out in Venezuela as of 2002 and the work performed by the Ombudsman Office and the security bodies to guarantee the safety of all people present, among them, workers and journalists of Globovisión. d) Alís Carolina Fariñas Sanguino, expert witness proposed by the State; she is the Second Public Prosecutor acting before the Cassation Chamber and the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela. She rendered a statement, inter alia, regarding the criminal and criminal-procedural system of Venezuela and in particular, about the role and rights of the victims in the Venezuelan criminal proceeding and the exercise of the criminal action. B) EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT 94. In the case at hand, as in many other cases,40 the Court admits the evidentiary value of such documents forwarded by the parties in the procedural stage that have not been disputed nor challenged, or its authenticy questioned. 95. Nevertheless, the Court has long held that, in admitting and assessing evidence, the procedures observed before this Court are not subject to the same formalities as those required in domestic judicial actions and that the admission of certain items into the body of evidence must be made paying special attention to the circumstances of the specific case, and bearing in mind the limits set by the respect for legal certainty and for the procedural equality for the parties.41 96. Together with the brief of pleadings and motions, the representatives forwarded, in exhibit number 50, the statements of 22 alleged victims, in simple copies, which were duly transmitted to the State. Then, the representatives tendered, on November 27, 2007 and on February 20, 2008, documents containing statements of the alleged victims, authenticated by the Consul General of the Republic of Costa Rica in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, arguing that “due to serious impediments, they were unable to tender such items of evidence when they submitted their autonomous brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence". In this way, the representatives requested, based on Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure, that said evidence be admitted, inasmuch as they could not be previously produced due to the public notaries’ refusal to authenticate them. The statements forwarded on this second occasion are much more than the ones tendered at the 40 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 33, para. 140; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 20 para. 53; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 22, para. 35. 41 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panamá. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 71; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala., supra note 22, para. 38; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 22, para. 41.