32 93. With regard to the abovementioned statements of the children Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico and of Tiramen Bosico Cofi, Teresa Tucent Mena and Leonidas Oliven Yean, as well as the expert report of Samuel Martínez, which have been authenticated and were not made before notary public, the Court admits them as it has on other occasions, because this does not affect legal certainty or the procedural equality of the parties.24 94. In relation to the statements made by Leonidas Oliven Yean on June 9 or July 25, 1999, and on July 24, 2001; the statement made by Tiramen Bosico Cofi on July 11, 1999, and the statement made by Genaro Rincón Miesse on August 9, 1999, provided by the Commission, the representatives and the State as documentary evidence, attached to their respective briefs of application, requests and arguments, and answering the application, the State indicated that these contained contradictions and a lack of precision. Accordingly, the Court admits them, bearing in mind the State’s objections and assesses them in the context of the body of evidence and not in isolation. 95. With regard to the birth certificate of the child Violeta Bosico, issued on March 3, 1997, by the auxiliary mayor of the Second Circumscription of Sabana Grande de Boyá, the State contested the veracity of the place of birth indicated on this certificate, because Tiramen Bosico had stated before the said mayor that the child was born at home, while in the statement that she made on February 2, 2005, authenticated by Marcelino de la Cruz, she explained that the child “was born in the Social Insurance Maternity Clinic of Sabana Grande de Boyá.” The Court notes that the State’s objection refers to the place of birth of the child Violeta Bosico; namely whether she was born at home or in a maternity clinic. In other words, the State did not contest or oppose the other elements on the certificate, that is, the name of the child, her date of birth, the name of her mother and the fact that she was born in the Dominican Republic. Consequently, the Court considers that, since the State did not contest the fact that the child Violeta Bosico was born in the Dominican Republic, the elements to which the State objects do not affect the Court’s decision on the central issue of this case. 96. Regarding the articles published by the press and presented by the parties, this Court considers that they can be assessed to the extent that they refer to wellknown public facts, or statements by State officials, or corroborate aspects related to the case.25 Testimonial and expert evidence assessment 97. With regard to the testimony of Genaro Rincón Miesse (supra para. 86(a)(1)), and the expert reports of Débora E. Soler Munczek and Frederick John Packer (supra paras. 86(c)(1) and 86(c)(2)), the Court admits them because it considers them useful to decide the instant case, but it also bears in mind the State’s observations regarding the expert witnesses, and assesses the testimony together with the body 24 Cf. Case of Yatama, supra note 13, para. 116; the Case of Serrano Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 39, and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía. Judgment of November 25, 2004, Series C No. 119, para. 82. 25 Cf. Case of Yatama, supra note 13, para. 119; Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 13, para. 51, and Case of Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra note 16, para. 46.