discretion and taking into account the whole body of evidence and the arguments submitted in the case. A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 46. The Court received documents presented by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State. In addition, the Court received the statements of the presumed victims proposed by the representatives, namely: (1) Leopoldo García Lucero and (2) Elena Otilia García. It also received the testimony of the witness María Luisa Sepúlveda, proposed by the representatives, and the witnesses José Antonio Ricardi Romero 31 (hereinafter also “Mr. Ricardi”), Paula Godoy Echegoyen and Claudio Valdivia Rivas, proposed by the State; the expert witnesses Nora Sveaass and Cath Collins, 32 proposed by the representatives and the expert witness Felícitas Treue, proposed by the Commission. The State advised that the witness Claudia Villalobos Pino could not provide her testimony for reasons beyond her control. B. Admission of the documentary evidence 47. In this case, as in others, 33 the Court admits the probative value of those documents provided by the parties at the appropriate procedural stage, which were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not questioned, exclusively insofar as they are pertinent and useful to determine the facts and their eventual legal consequences. 48. Regarding the newspaper articles, this Court has considered that they may be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or declarations of State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case. 34 Accordingly, the Court decides to admit the newspaper articles that are complete or that, at least, allow their source and date of publication to be established, and will assess them taking into account the whole body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 35 30 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. 51, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 30. 31 During the meeting preceding the hearing, the State advised that, for reasons beyond his control, the witness José Antonio Ricardi Romero was unable to attend the public hearing, contrary to the decision in the Order of the President of February 14, 2013. Accordingly, it was decided that Mr. Ricardi would provide his testimony by affidavit. In a communication of March 21, 2013, on the instruction of the President of the Court, the representatives were granted until April 1, 2013, to forward to the Court in writing any questions they considered it pertinent to ask the deponent, and the State was required to submit the affidavit by April 10, 2013, at the latest. The representatives submitted their questions on March 28, 2013, and on April 2, 2013, they were forwarded to the State, for the witness to answer them. On April 10, 2013, the State presented this affidavit. 32 On February 26, 2013 the representatives advised the Court that, for reasons beyond her control, Cath Collins would be unable to attend the public hearing and asked that she provide her expert opinion by affidavit. In a communication of March 1, 2013, the Secretariat, on the instruction of the President, decided that she could provide her opinion by affidavit and the State was granted until March 6, 2013, to forward to the Court in writing any questions they considered it pertinent to ask her; however, it did not submit any questions. On March 13, 2013, Ms. Collins presented the affidavit. 33 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 32. 34 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits, supra, para. 146, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 33. 3535 The representatives provided a newspaper article from “Emol”, dated January 26, 2011, entitled “Fiscal de la Corte de Apelaciones presenta más de 700 querellas por violaciones a DD.HH” [Appeals Court prosecutor files more than 700 complaints for human rights violations] (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome II, fs. 2366 and 2367). In addition, during the proceedings before the Commission, they provided a newspaper article 16