27 as defined by the Court. It will assess that affidavit in the body of evidence, applying the rules of logic. 70. The documents provided by witnesses Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser and by expert witness Rubén Hernández Valle (supra paragraphs 51, 62, 63 and 64) at the public hearing on preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs held on April 30 and May 1, 2004, and those presented by the alleged victims’ representatives in their final written pleadings (supra para. 65) will be useful to the Court when deciding the present case, especially inasmuch as they were neither challenged nor contested, and their authenticity or veracity was never called into question. The Court is therefore adding them to the body of evidence, in application of Article 44(1) of the Rules of Court. 71. With respect to the press articles presented by the parties, this Court has considered that, even though they are not documentary evidence stricto sensu, they can be assessed when they refer to well-known public and notorious facts, or statements by State officials, or corroborate aspects of the instant case. 21 Testimonial and Expert Evidence Assessment 72. The Court admits into evidence the statements made by the alleged victims in the instant case (supra, paragraphs 66.a and 66.b) insofar as those statements serve the purpose of the examination proposed by the Commission. As this Court has held, both for the merits and for reparations the testimony of the alleged victims and their next of kin is useful insofar as they can provide additional information on the consequences of the violations that may have occurred. 22 73. As for the expert opinions offered as evidence (supra paragraphs 66.c, 66.d, 66.e, 66.f and 66.g), which were neither challenged nor contested, the Court admits them and regards them as evidence. 74. The Court will therefore assess the probatory value of the documents, testimony, and expert opinions submitted in writing or rendered before the Court. Evidence submitted at all stages of the proceedings has been combined into a single body of evidence, which is taken as a whole. 23 VII PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 75. The State filed the following preliminary objections: 1) failure to exhaust the following domestic remedies: a) legal action challenging constitutionality, in the case of Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa; b) 21 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack-Chang, supra note 7, para. 131; Case of Bulacio, supra note 7, para. 63; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 20, para. 56. 22 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 7, para. 53; Case of Myrna Mack-Chang, supra note 7, para. 132; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 7, para. 66. 23 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 7, para. 57; Case of Bulacio, supra note 7, para. 68; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 20, para. 60.