11 B) Evidence Assessment 37. In the instant case, as in others,28 the Court, in accordance with Article 44 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, admits and recognizes the evidentiary value of the documents submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural stage which have neither been disputed nor challenged, and the authenticity of which has not been questioned. 38. With regard to the documents requested by the Court as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, in particular the receipts of expenses submitted by the representatives and the directives issued by Mr. John Nurse in June 2007 regarding the procedure for judicial hangings (supra paras. 8 and 9), the Court incorporates them into the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 39. Regarding the press documents submitted by the parties, the Court considers that they may be assessed insofar as they refer to public and notorious facts or statements made by State officials that have not been amended, or if they corroborate related aspects to the case that are proven by other means.29 40. With respect to the testimonies and expert opinions rendered by witnesses and expert witnesses, the Court deems them relevant insofar as they comport with the scope defined by the Orders of the President (supra paras. 6, 35 and 36), and taking into account all the observations of the parties. The Court considers that the alleged victims have a direct interest in the outcome of this case, and therefore their statements cannot be assessed separately, but rather must be assessed within the context of the body of evidence in this case.30 41. The Court also adds to the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure and because it considers it useful in the ruling of this case, the diagram presented by Professor Coyle at the public hearing held on July 11, 2007. 42. Furthermore, the State presented a “[l]etter of January 21, 2003 from the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, attaching the Minutes of Hearing No. 55, Death Penalty in Barbados, Monday, October 18, 2002” when submitting its observations to the representatives’ additional written brief. The Court finds that the aforementioned document submitted by the State, which has not been challenged and the authenticity of which has not been questioned, is useful and relevant; therefore, the Court incorporates it into the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 43. Additionally, the State submitted further documentary evidence with its final written arguments. The Court finds that the aforementioned documents submitted by the State, which have not been challenged and the authenticity of which has not been questioned, are useful and relevant, and they relate to clarifications required by the Judges at the public hearing on the present case. Therefore, the Court incorporates them into the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 28 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Perú. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, para. 53; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 25, para. 41, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 25, para. 37. 29 Cf. Case of The “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al), supra note 25, para. 75; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 25, para. 41, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 25, para. 38. 30 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 25, para. 44, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 25, para. 40.