21 previously and that could have been caused by the tip of a bayonet. C) ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE Assessment of the Documentary Evidence 50. In this case, as in others,14 the Court admits the evidentiary value of those documents that were submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural time or as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, which was not contested or challenged, and the authenticity of which was not questioned. On the other hand, the Court, pursuant to Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, admits the evidence submitted by the parties regarding to events supervening to the filing of the application. 51. This Court has deemed, regarding to newspaper clippings, that while they are not documentary evidence proper, they may be taken into account when they reflect publicly known or notorious facts, statements by State officials, or when they corroborate what is set forth in other documents or testimony tendered in the proceeding.15 52. The Court finds that the statement by Bent Sorensen, offered as an expert witness by the representative of the alleged victims and their next of kin, was contributed to the proceeding (supra para. 25) in accordance with the President’s March 1, 2004 Order (supra para. 24). Its content and the signature of the person who signed the statement were certified by a notary public. 53. In this regard, the State argued that the expert witness “ha[s] not talked or discussed the cases with any of the victims or witnesses;” for which reason “the conclusions [of the expert witness] can in no way be categorical or decisive.”16 54. The Court admits Bent Sorensen’s expert opinion insofar as it is in accordance with the object defined by the President in the Order to receive it17 (supra para. 24) and the Court will appraise its content, as it has done in other cases, within the context of the body of evidence and applying the rules of competent analysis.18 55. Regarding to the video submitted by the representatives of the argued victims and their next of kin on May 1, 2004 (supra para. 27), the State stated that “it is an edited video -and what was presented was a copy- that intentionally leads to error by repeating the audio with certain images, which clearly show its manipulation[; i]t is 14 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, para. 52; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 128; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 57. 15 See Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 131 in fine; Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 63; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 56. 16 See file on the merits, reparations, and costs, volume IV, leaves 907 to 917. See Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 130; Case of Las Palmeras. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention Human Rights). Judgment of November 26, 2002. Series C No. 96, para. 30; and Case of the Caracazo. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention Human Rights). Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 59. 17 18 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, paras. 44, 48 and 49; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, paras. 120 and 121; Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 62; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 55; and Case of the Caracazo. Reparations, supra note 17, para. 60.