26 79. As regards the documentary evidence submitted by the parties after their submission of the main pleadings (supra paras. 19, 31, 33, 36 and 37), only the Inter-American Commission raised objections concerning only the evidence submitted by the State together with its final arguments (supra para. 34). None of the other documents tendered by the parties were objected to by any of them. The Court notes that part of the evidence submitted by the State together with its final written arguments corresponds to the evidence required by the Court during the public hearing held in the instant case (supra para. 28), whereby it admits it. As regards the rest of the evidence submitted by the parties, the Court likewise admits it, as it deems it useful for the adjudication of the instant case. Therefore, the Court incorporates all of these documents to the body of evidence. 80. As regards the documents submitted by the Asociación Americana de Juristas de Valparaíso/Aconcagua (American Association of Legal Scholars of Valparaíso/Aconcagua) as attachments to their amicus curiae, the Court admits them, since they contain information which is useful and relevant to the instant case. 81. Finally, as to the press documents submitted by the parties, the Court has considered that they may be assessed insofar as they contain public and notorious facts or statements given by State officials or confirm aspects related to the case.19 VII PROVEN FACTS 82. After analyzing the evidence, the testimonies of witnesses and expert witnesses and the arguments of the Inter-American Commission, of the representatives and of the State, the Court finds the following facts to be proven. Mention must be made that the State did not challenge at any procedural stage the facts detailed in paragraphs 1 to 23 of this Chapter. Similarly, the Commission and the representatives did not challenge the facts specified in paragraphs 24 and 26 to 35 herein. Moreover, the Court points out that the facts described in infra subparagraph b) regarding the events occurred prior to the ratification of the jurisdiction of the Court by the Chilean State can only be considered precedents for the purpose of providing context for the facts mentioned in subsequent subparagraphs.20 Lastly, the Court remarks that the information on the events described in subparagraph b(i) was entirely gathered from three official reports about the events occurred from September 11, 1973 to March 10, 1990, i.e. the Report of the Comisión Nacional de Verdad y Reconciliación (National Truth and Reconciliation Commission), the Report on the classification of victims of human rights violations and political violence of the Corporación Nacional de Reparación y Reconciliación (National Reparation and Reconciliation Corporation), and the Report of the Comisión Nacional sobre Prisión Política y Tortura (National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture). 19 Cf. Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 14, para. 55; Case of the Ituango-Massacres, supra note 17, para. 122; and Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 14, para. 70. 20 As stated by the European Court, even if there is only ratione temporis jurisdiction regarding events occurred after the ratification of the European Convention, “it could have regard to the facts prior to ratification inasmuch as they [...] might be relevant for the understanding of facts occurring after that date.” ECHR, Case of Broniowski v Poland [GC]. Judgment of 22 June 2004, Application No. 31433/96, para. 122.