24 4) Marcelo Flores Torrico, medical doctor, expert witness proposed by the representatives, who rendered an expert assessment regarding the medical results obtained from the assessment carried out on the alleged victim, the after-effects that Mr. Vélez Loor would present at the moment as a consequence of the facts of the instant case, and the necessary measures to repair the alleged violations. 2. Admission of the Documentary Evidence 74. In the case at hand, as in many other cases, the Tribunal admits the evidentiary value of such documents presented in a timely manner by the parties that were not contested or objected to, or whose authenticity was not questioned.51 75. The State objected to the use as evidence “of the independent investigations, reports of the Ombudsman’s Office[, except for those reports containing statistics corresponding to the years 2002-2003,] and reports of organizations that have monitored the situation in prisons[, specifically, annexes 24,52 2753 and 3254 of the application,] given that they were all prepared five years after the detention of Mr. Vélez Loor in the Panamanian penitentiary centers;” therefore, in the State’s opinion, such reports and investigations do not have evidentiary value and may only be considered based on its investigative value in the general context. In particular, the State mentioned that the Report of the Harvard University International Human Rights Clinic, “Human Rights Stop at These Doors: Injustice and Inequality in Panamanian Prisons,” was published in March 2008, the "Alternative Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Panama,” of the Human Rights Network/Panama was presented to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in March 2008, the Psychological and Medical Expert Report on Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor in the month of July 2008, and the communications of the Inter-American Commission related to the request for precautionary measures are dated January 2008. Moreover, Panama did not consider pertinent the reference made to the proceedings conducted by the petitioner in the State of Ecuador and before authorities of that country to bring accusations against Panama. In this respect, the Court takes note of the observations of the State and decides to admit said documents and assess them as appropriate, taking into account the body of evidence, the observations of the State, and the rules of sound judgment. 76. Regarding the newspaper articles submitted by the Commission and the representatives, this Tribunal has considered that they can be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case.55 The Court verified that, in some of the documents, the date of the publication cannot be read. However, none of the parties objected to such documents for this fact nor questioned their authenticity. Therefore, the Tribunal decides to admit the documents that are complete or that, at least, allow verifying their source and date of publication, and shall assess them according to the body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judgment. 51 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 28, para. 42, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 27, para. 31. 52 Identified as “Psychological Medical Expert of possible Torture and/or cruel treatment issued on July, 2008 by doctors Marcelo Flores Torrico (Medical Expert) and Andrés Gautier (Psychological Expert).” 53 Identified as “Clinic of International Human Rights Law of Harvard University, ‘Human Rights Stop at These Doors: Injustice and Inequality in Panamanian Prisons,’ in March 2008”. 54 Identified as “Letter of January 11, 2008, of the IACHR to the State of Panama in the framework of the request for precautionary measures related to the conditions of detention in La Joya-Joyita.” 55 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 51, para. 146; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 28, para. 43, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 27, para. 35.