30 the statement of the alleged victim is useful insofar as it can provide more information on the consequences of the alleged violations.16 79. With regard to the sworn written statements made before notary public by the witnesses proposed by the State (supra para. 38), in accordance with the order of the President of March 5, 2004 (supra para. 35), the Court admits them insofar as they correspond to their purpose and assesses them with the body of evidence, applying the rules of sound criticism. 80 In the case of the Articles published by the press, this Court considers that, even though they do not correspond to documentary evidence stricto sensu, they can be assessed to the extent that they refer to well-known public facts, or statements by State officials, or corroborate what has been established in other documents, or testimonies heard during the proceeding.17 81. The Court considers helpful the documents provided by the representatives of the alleged victim when submitting comments on the statement made by Lori Berenson before notary public (supra para. 67) and with their final written arguments, and also the documents provided by the State with its final written arguments (supra para. 68), since they were not contested or opposed, and their authenticity was not questioned, so they are added to the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure.18 82. This proceeding is a means of ensuring that justice is done and cannot be subject to mere formalities,19 without this affecting legal certainty and the procedural equality of the parties.20 Since it relates to human rights violations and, consequently, protects the principle of the historical truth, the proceeding before this international Court has a less formal character that a proceeding before the domestic authorities.21 83. The report by Héctor Fáundez Ledesma, presented as an attachment to the State’s brief with final arguments (supra para. 51), was contested by the Commission and the representatives, as it had not be produced at the proper procedural opportunity (supra paras. 52, 55 and 56). Bearing in mind the reasoning 16 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 3, para. 86; Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 3, para. 66; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C. No. 110, para. 63. 17 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 81; Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 3, para. 65; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 16, para. 51. 18 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 3, para. 78; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 90; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 3, para. 64. 19 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 16, para. 58; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits and reparations. (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 26, 2003. Series C No. 102, para. 42; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 12, 2002. Series C No. 93, para. 35. 20 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 16, para. 58; Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 4, para. 48; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Interpretation of judgment, supra note 19, para. 28. 21 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 16, para. 58; Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 4, para. 48; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Interpretation of judgment, supra note 19, para. 42.