24 . representatives provided documents consisting in statements of the alleged victims authenticated by the General Consulate of the Republic of Costa Rica in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, arguing that “due to reasons of a grave impairment” they could not be offered when the presented their brief of pleadings and arguments. Thus, the representatives, based on Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure, requested that said evidence be declared admissible, since they could not be provided earlier due to the refusal of some notary publics to certify them. Regarding the statements forwarded on that second occasion, the format and there are differences between some of the sections of the statements that were sent first and the ones later authenticated. 83. In this sense, the Commission expressed that “as long as [the documentary evidence provided by the representatives on December 17, 2007] consists of duly certified copies of statements that were in fact presented to the Tribunal on the corresponding procedural moment, it has not observations to present.” 84. Taking into account the aforementioned considerations, this Tribunal believes that the State’s right to defense has not been violated, since the latter had the possibility to object and dispute the content of all those statements. However, the eleven statements that were forwarded by the representatives in the corresponding procedural opportunity, that is, along with the brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence, will be included in the body of evidence, and assessed taking into account the parties’ observations. With regard to the statements forwarded on December 17, 2007 by the representatives, elements to determine the veracity of the alleged hindrance have not been presented in the terms of Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure. However, they were forwarded to the State, who had the opportunity to present observations. Given that the Tribunal considers that these statements are relevant and useful for the resolution of the present case, it includes them in the body of evidence in the terms of Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 85. Similarly, the representatives expressed that the Notary Public refused to legally receive the statements of the witnesses and experts required in the Order of the President of the Court of June 11, 2008. The State did not object the aforementioned. 86. The Court considered it wrongful that those who exercise public duties of bearing witness refuse to receive statements of people summoned by an international human rights court. Pursuant with Article 24(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the States Parties in a case have the duty to “facilitate [the] execution of orders to appear before the Court of people residing in their territory or in it.” Said people were summoned by the Presidency of the Court to offer their statements before a notary public. Therefore, the State shall guarantee, as a projection of the principle of good faith that must govern compliance of conventional obligations, that there are no obstacles in obtaining the evidence. 47 However, in the present case the Court does not have sufficient evidence to determine the veracity of the alleged hindrance. 87. In reference to the press documents presented by the parties, which have not been objected, this Tribunal considers that they may be effective as evidence only when they refer to public and notorious facts or statements made by State officials or when they verify aspects related to the case48 and are verified by any other means.49 The Permanent Arbitration Court established that “[e]ach State shall comply with its conventional obligations bona fide, and if it does not do so it may be punished with the common punishments established in International Law” (translation of this Court). Cf. Reports of International Arbitral Awards, The North Atlantic Coast Fisheries (Great Britain, United States), 7 September 1910, Volume XI, pp. 167-226, p. 186. 47 48 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 38, para. 146; Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Merits, supra note 45, para. 75; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia, supra note 29, para. 62, and Case of Ticona Estrada V. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 42.