19 statements rendered by Augusto César Oliveira Serra and Gerson de Souza Barbosa (supra para. 28 and 29). 63. The Court does not admit the statement made by Tálita de Borba Maranhão e Silva, submitted by the State for this purpose as part of the body of evidence, in view of the position expressed by the Commission and the representatives, and the Court Ruling of November 30, 2005 (supra paras. 23, 27, 28 and 29). 64. The Court notes that although the opinion given by Luiz Flávio Gomes (supra para. 56(3)(a) was also signed Alice Bianchini, the expert had clarified that she did no more than to “help with the investigation and the gathering of information for the expert opinion,” whereas he “was responsible for weighing the facts and, accordingly, for the brief and all the ideas contained therein.” Therefore, the Court admits the statement as an opinion rendered by Luiz Flávio Gomes, finding it consistent with the object cited in the Ruling of November 30, 2005 (supra para. 23), and will deem it part of the overall body of evidence, applying the rules of sound judicial discretion. 65. As for press documents submitted by the Commission, the representatives and the State, this Court feels that they can be weighed as evidence if they reflect facts commonly known by the public or statements by Government employees, or if they corroborate aspects of this case.15 Evaluation of Testimony 66. This Court admits the testimonies of Fernando Batista de Vasconcelos (supra para. 57(1)(a), Gilson José Ribeiro Campos (supra para. 57(2)(a) and Henrique César Cavalcanti (supra para. 57(2)(b), noting that they are useful for resolving the case at hand, and incorporates them into the body of evidence applying the rules of sound judicial discretion. VII PROVEN FACTS 67. Based on evidence submitted and in consideration of statements by the parties, the Court takes the facts outlined below as well-founded. They are divided into two parts. The first section lists facts that occurred prior to the State's recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of the Court. The Court will consider these only as background information but will refrain from establishing any juridical consequences based upon them. The second part contains facts that took place after the Court's jurisdiction had been recognized (supra para. 4). Background Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 9, para. 81; Case of Servellón García et al., supra note 11, para. 50; and Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 11, para. 55. 15