23 54. With respect to the statement by witness Celso Sánchez, set forth in the affidavit supplied by the Inter-American Commission at the time of the public hearing (supra 23), the State argued that it lacks evidentiary value, as the witness did not appear at the oral proceedings and it is contrary to the rules of “equity and competent analysis.” In their final written pleadings, the representatives, in turn, pointed out that said statement and its submission were in accordance with the practice of the Court, which follows the principles of procedural economy and promptness. 55. The Court, in turn, notes that in this case the statement by Celso Sánchez was contributed to the proceeding by means of the brief in which it is set forth. Its content and the signature of the person signing the statement were certified by a notary public. This, in itself, contributes to its credibility. Nevertheless, the Court will not consider the respective procedural item conclusive evidence, but rather will assess its content, as it has done in other cases, within the context of the body of evidence and applying the rules of competent analysis.22 56. This Court has deemed that with respect to newspaper clippings that, even though they are not documentary evidence proper, they may be taken into account when they reflect public or notorious facts, statements of officials of the State, or when they corroborate what has been set forth in other documents or testimony received during the proceeding.23 Thus, the Court adds them to the body of evidence as a suitable means of verification, together with the other items of evidence supplied, inasmuch as they are relevant to the veracity of the facts in the case. Evaluation of the Testimonial Evidence and Expert Opinions 57. With respect to the testimony rendered by María Dominga Sánchez and Domitila Vijil Sánchez in the instant case (supra 44a and 44b), the Court admits it insofar as it is in accordance with the object of the examination proposed by the Commission. In this regard, the Court deems that as they are next of kin of the alleged victim and have a direct interest in this case, there expressions cannot be assessed in an isolated manner, but rather within the context of the whole body of evidence of the proceeding. Regarding the merits and reparations, the testimony of the next of kin of the alleged victim are useful insofar as they can supply additional information on the consequences of the violations that may have been committed.24 58. Regarding the statements of the officers of the armed forces at the time of the facts, Luis Discua Elvir and Enmanuel Flores Mejía, and of the officials of the Attorney General’s Office, Lucinda Mena Amaya and José Germán Silvestrucci, the Court admits them insofar as they are in accordance with the object of the examination proposed by the State. The Court notes that the aforementioned 22 Cf. El Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 60; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 4, para. 69; Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 37; and Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 15. 23 Cf. Cantos Case, supra note 5, para. 39; Baena Ricardo et al. Case. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 78; and Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 3, para. 94. 24 Cf. Cantos Case, supra note 5, para. 42; El Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 59; and Trujillo Oroza Case, Reparations, supra note 22, para. 52.