12 34. In this case, as in others,20 the Tribunal admits the evidentiary value of the documents presented by the parties on their procedural opportunity that were not opposed or objected, nor was their authenticity questioned. With regard to the documents forwarded as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. 10), the Court includes them in the body of evidence, in application of that stated in Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 35. Similarly, the Tribunal accepts the documents presented by the State and the representatives during the public hearing, since it considers them useful for the present case and their authenticity or veracity were not objected or questioned. 36. In what refers to the additional documents sent by the representatives along with their brief of final arguments (supra para. 9), regarding the procedural costs and expenses, the Court reiterates that pursuant to Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure, “[i]tems of evidence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if previous notification thereof is contained in the application and in the reply thereto.” Additionally, this Tribunal has stated that “the claims of the victims or their representatives in relation to costs and expenses, and the evidence supporting them, must be presented to the Court at the first procedural opportunity granted to them, namely, in the brief containing pleadings and motions, without prejudice to those claims being updated subsequently, to include new costs and expenses incurred as a result of the proceedings before this Court.”21 On this opportunity the Court considers that these documents are useful in deciding the present case and will assess them along with the rest of the body of evidence and taking into account the observations made in this regard by the State (supra para. 10). 37. Regarding the expert opinions and the testimony offered in the public hearing (supra paras. 32 and 33), the Court considers them relevant since they adjust to the object defined by the President in the Ruling in which she ordered they be received (supra para. 6). The Court points out that Mrs. Victoriana Tiu Tojín offered her statement in the Mayan language k’iche’, reason for which a translator guaranteed that she could understand and be understood during that hearing. This Tribunal considers that the testimonial statement offered by Mrs. Victoriana Tiu Tojín cannot be assessed in an isolated manner since the person making the statement has a direct interest in the case, and therefore it will be appraised within the totality of the evidence of the process.22 20 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 17, para. 67; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 17, para. 35. 21 Cfr. Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C No. 108, para. 22; Case of Apitz Barbera et al (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 258; and Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 75. 22 Cfr. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico, supra note 21, para. 72, and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 17, para. 49.