19. In regard to the press releases, this Court has considered that they may be assessed when they entail public and notorious facts or declarations by officals of the State, or when they corroborate issues related to the case.16 The Court decides to admit said documents that are found to be complete or where, at least, their source can be verified and their date is published, and will assess them within the body of evidence, the comments of the parties, and rules of sound judgment. 20. The Court notes that the State questioned the evidence submitted by the representatives in regard to the alleged violations of Article 24 of the American Convention upon noting that "they based their complaint on alleged declarations rendered before social, printed, and audiovisual means of communication that cannot be considered sufficient evidence of the violation of rights and guarantees, since this involves instruments that express the interpretation that the social media gives to the information provided by the interviewee regarding the matter, which does not indicate with certainty that the information came from where it was said to come from or that it is true”; and that “they can, upon not being a true reflection of the assertions of the declarant, even be considered as evidence.” As such, the Court considers that these comments make reference to the merits of the controversy, which the Court will assess in the pertinent part of the Judgment (infra paras. 190 to 195), the cited evidence in relation to the proven facts of the case, in conformity with the focus of the litigation, considering the body of evidence as a whole, the observations of the State, and the rules of sound judgment. 21. On the other hand, together with the final written arguments, the representatives and the State submitted various documents as evidence, those which were requested by the Court as established in that provided in Article 58(b) of the Court Rules of Procedure (supra paras. 11 and 12), which will therefore be incorporated and assessed where appropriate together with the body of evidence, the comments of the parties, and the rules of sound judgment. 22. Lastly, pursuant to that indicated in the note of the Secretariat of the Court on March 8, 2011, the videos and audio included in a CD labeled "Agresiones a Leopoldo López transmitidas por VTV (Canal Oficial del Estado Venezolano)” [Attacks against Leopoldo López transmitted by VTC (Official Channel of the State of Venezuela], presented by the representative during the public hearing (supra paras. 9 and 11) were not incorporated into the case file. The plenary of the Court considered that said videos and audio were not related to the specific legal issues the Court is resolving in this case. 3. Admission of testimonial and evidentiary evidence 23. In regard to the statements rendered before a notary public by three expert witnesses and one witness; and the alleged victim, one witness, and four expert witnesses presented at the public hearing, the Court will admit them and deems them relevant only in what regards the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order requesting them, (supra para. 7) and the purpose of this case, considering the comments. 16 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 20, para. 146; Case of Vélez Loor, supra note 12, para. 76, and Case of Gomes Lund et al “Guerrilha do Araguaia”, supra note 17, para. 56. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, para. 146; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011. Series C No. 223, para. 40, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 30. 12