12 next of kin are of use to the extent that they provide further information on the consequences of the violations committed.19 34. As regards the expert witness report of Julio Raúl Moscoso-Álvarez (supra para. 27(b)), rendered by way of an affidavit, this Court will admit such statement to the extent that it conforms to the purpose defined in the order of the President of March 15, 2007 (supra para. 8), to be assessed together with the entire body of evidence in this case. 35. With regards to the press articles submitted by the Inter-American Commission, the Court has considered that they could be taken into account if they report on matters of fact that are apparent and publicly known or on statements made by State authorities, or else if they provide corroboration for aspects connected to the instant case.20 Assessment of Witness and Expert witness oral evidence 36. The Court allows the testimony provided by Carmen Cornejo de Albán before the Court (supra para. 28(a)), insofar as it conforms to the purpose of the statement as defined in the order of the President of March 15, 2007 (supra para. 8), to be assessed in the context of the body of evidence in the instant case. Furthermore, the Court insists on its above statements regarding the value of her statement in view of her nature as an alleged victim in the instant case (supra para. 33). 37. Regarding to the expert witness statement given by Ernesto Albán-Gómez before the Court (supra para. 28(b)), the Court will allow it insofar as it conforms to the purpose of the expert witness report as defined in the order of the President of March 15, 2007 (supra para. 8), applying thereto the rules of competent analysis. VI ARTICLES 4(1) (RIGHT TO LIFE),21 5(1) (RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT), 22 13 (FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION) 23 AND 17 (RIGHTS OF THE FAMILY) 24 IN RELATION TO 19 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 the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 121; Case of Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 56; and Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 59. 20 Cf. Case of Velázquez-Rodríguez, supra note 14, para. 146; Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz, supra note 13, para. 41; Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al., supra note 9, para. 38; and Caso of Escué-Zapata, supra note 12, para. 28. 21 In its relevant part Article 4(1) (Right to Life) reads as follows: [e]very person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 22 In its relevant part Article 5(1) (Right to Humane Treatment) reads as follows: [e]very person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.