13 38. On November 29, 2001, the Inter-American Commission submitted a copy of the Tuesday, November 13, 2001 edition of the newspaper Nuevo Diario which mentions “the accolade that the Chamber of Deputies of the Province of Santiago del Estero bestowed upon Mr. José María Cantos in recognition of the numerous programs and works serving the province’s communities and of which Mr. Cantos has been a benefactor.” On January 21, 2002, the State objected to the inclusion of that document in the case file. Its argument was that it could not be used as evidence, because it was not tendered within the time periods stipulated in Article 43(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure and on the grounds that none of the circumstances stipulated in Article 43(3) of those Rules, allowing evidence to be admitted at times other than those stipulated in Article 43(1), is being alleged or obtains. 39. The Court observes that the press clipping submitted to the Court concerns a supervening event, news of which came out subsequent to the submission of the application briefs and the brief answering the brief of preliminary objections. It is therefore admitting it pursuant to Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure.15 On the subject of newspaper clippings, this Court has considered that while they are not documentary evidence per se, they may be taken into consideration when they concern public or well-known facts or statements made by State officials, or when they corroborate facts established in other documents or testimony received during the proceeding.16 The Court therefore adds them to the body of evidence to be used, insofar as they are relevant and in combination with the other forms of evidence tendered, to verify the truth of the facts alleged in the case. 40. In exercise of its authorities under Article 44 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Court is adding to the body of evidence, laws Nos. 21,839 and 24,432, which concern attorneys’ fees. 41. In this case, as in others,17 the Court is accepting the evidentiary value of those documents that the parties tendered at the appropriate time in these proceedings or as evidence to better decide the case, which were neither contested nor challenged and whose authenticity was not questioned. 42. The Court is admitting the statements made by the alleged victim in the instant case to the extent that they are consistent with the purpose of the line of questioning proposed by the Commission. In this regard, the Court considers that because the person in question is the alleged victim and has a direct interest in this case, his statements cannot be considered in isolation, but as part of the whole body of evidence in the case. For purposes of the merits and reparations, statements made by the alleged victims are useful in that they can provide more information about the consequences of any violations that may have been perpetrated.18 15 Cf. Cesti Hurtado Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 31, 2001. Series C No. 78, par. 29; Constitutional Court Case, supra note 8, par. 51; and Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 8, par. 109. 16 Cf. Baena Ricardo et al. Case. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, par. 78; Constitutional Court Case, supra note 8, par. 52; and Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 18, par. 107. 17 Las Palmeras Case, Reparations, note 5, par. 28; El Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 5, par. 57; and Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 5, par. 80. 18 Cf. El Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 5, par. 59; Trujillo Oroza Case, Reparations, supra note 6, par. 52; and Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, par. 27.