15 2) María Sol Yáñez de la Cruz, professor and researcher, Department of Psychology of the Universidad Centroamericana “José Simeón Cañas” (UCA), expert witness proposed by the representatives, who gave an expert opinion on the psychosocial effects that the alleged forced disappearance had on Gregoria Herminia Contreras and the consequences that these facts would continue to have today; the damage caused to the families of all the alleged victims in this case as a result of the alleged forced disappearance of the children; the psychosocial effects that the alleged impunity of these facts have had on their next of kin, as well as the measures that the Salvadoran State could take to repair the damage caused to the alleged victims and their next of kin. 3) Ricardo Alberto Iglesias Herrera, lawyer and notary in private practice, former deputy head of the Ombudsman’s Office of El Salvador, expert witness proposed by the representatives, who gave his expert opinion on the alleged general impunity that reigns in cases of grave human rights violations in El Salvador and the main causes; the analysis of the different judicial proceedings conducted in El Salvador in relation to the forced disappearance of children in order to identify the main obstacles to obtaining justice in this type of case, as well as recommendations regarding the measures that the State could take to overcome these obstacles. 2. Admission of the documentary evidence 32. In this case, as in others, the Court accepts the probative value of the documents presented by the parties at the proper procedural opportunity that were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned.23 33. Regarding the newspaper articles forwarded by the Commission and the representatives, this Court has found that they can be admitted when they contain wellknown public facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case.24 The Court verified that, on some of those documents, the date of publication is illegible. Nevertheless, neither of the parties objected to those documents because of this, or questioned their authenticity. Consequently, the Court decides to admit the documents that are complete or that, at least, allow their source and publication date to be verified, and will assess them, taking into account all the body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion.25 34. Regarding the representatives’ request to incorporate six statements and an expert opinion from the case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador into the body of evidence, the Court observes that neither the Commission nor the State opposed this. Nevertheless, the Court finds it unnecessary to incorporate these elements, since they are not essential in light of all the probative elements that already form part of the body of evidence in this case, as well as the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility. 23 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140; Case of Mejía Idrovo, supra note 19, para. 38, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 19, para. 29. 24 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 23, para. 146; Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 19, para. 30, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al., supra note 13, para. 40. 25 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 77; Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 19, para. 30, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al., supra note 13, para. 40.