42 veracity were not contested. The Court therefore adds them to the body of evidence, in keeping with Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 119. The Court considers useful for deciding this case the documents presented by the State and the representatives during the public hearing on September 22 and 23, 2005 (supra para. 43), as well as other documents presented as attachments to their respective final argument briefs (supra paras. 47 and 49); particularly, as they were not contested or opposed and their authenticity and veracity were not contested, The Court therefore adds them to the body of evidence, in keeping with Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 120. Regarding the documents forwarded as useful evidence by the State and the representatives on October 24 and 25, 2005 (supra paras. 47 and 49), respectively, and also those forwarded on June 28 and 29, 2006, by the State and the representatives (supra para. 52), respectively, the Court incorporates them into the body of evidence in this case in application of the provisions of Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 121. In relation to both merits and reparations, the statements of the alleged victims, as well as those of their next of kin, are useful to the extent that they can provide more information on the alleged violations that may have been perpetrated and their consequences. However, since the alleged victims or their next of kin have a direct interest in this case, these statements must be assessed together with all the evidence in the case and not in isolation.33 122. In the case of the newspaper articles submitted by the parties, the Court considers that they can be assessed to the extent that they refer to well-known public facts or statements by State officials, or corroborate aspects related to the case.34 123. In application of the provisions of Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court incorporates into the body of evidence in the instant case, the following evidence already assessed in the “Mapiripán Massacre” case, because it is useful to decide this case: Act 48 of December 16, 1968, Legislative Decree No. 3398 of December 24, 1965, and Decrees Nos. 0180 of January 27, 1988, 0815 of April 19, 1989, 1194 of June 8, 1989, 3030/90 of December 14, 1990, 2266 of October 4, 1991, 324 of February 25, 2000, 128 of January 22, 2003, 3360 of November 24, 2003, 2767 of August 31, 2004, and 250 of February 7, 2005; and Acts 387 of July 18, 1997, 200 of 1995, 548 of December 23, 1999, 782 of December 23, 2002, and 418 of December 26, 1997; the judgments of March 17, 1998, issued by the Superior Military Tribunal; May 25, 1989, delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice; April 14, 1998, issued by the Tribunal Nacional; May 28, 1997, delivered by the Cúcuta Regional Court; C-225/95 of May 18, 1996, delivered by the Colombian Constitutional Court; all in Colombia; the report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on summary or arbitrary executions on a visit to Colombia from October 11 to 20, 1989 (E/CN.4/1990/22/Add.1 of 24 January 1990); and the reports of the 33 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 5, para. 66; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 9, para. 37; and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 12, para. 203. 34 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 5, para. 70; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 9, para. 45; and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 12, para. 199.