16 also received the affidavits of María del Tránsito Hernández Rochac, Julio Antonio Flores Iraheta, María Adela Hernández, Ester Abarca Ayala and the expert opinion of Frank La Rue. As to the evidence provided during the public hearing, the Court heard the statements of María Juliana Rochac Hernández, José Arístides Bonilla Osorio and the expert opinion of Martha de la Concepción Cabrera Cruz. In addition, the following were included in the body of evidence in the instant case: the expert opinions of Douglass Cassel, Viktor Jovev and Ana Georgina Ramos de Villalta, rendered by affidavit; the expert opinions provided during the public hearing by María Sol Yáñez de la Cruz and Ricardo Alberto Iglesias Herrera; and the written extension to the expert opinion provided by María Sol Yáñez de la Cruz, all corresponding to the Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador.32 Likewise, the Court received from the parties various documents requested as helpful evidence (supra paras. 9, 10, 11 and 13). B. Admission of the evidence B.1 Admission of the documentary evidence 39. In this case, as in others, the Court accepts those documents presented by the parties and the Commission at the proper procedural opportunity that were not contested or opposed,33 together with those requested by the Court under the provisions of Article 58(b) of the Rules of the Court that were provided by the parties after the public hearing. 40. Regarding the newspaper articles forwarded by the Commission and the representatives, this Court considers that these may be assessed when they contain public and well-known facts or statements by government officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case. 34 Consequently, the Court decides to admit those documents, provided that they are complete or, at least, include a source and date of publication.35 41. As to the documents on costs and expenses forwarded by the representatives with their final written arguments, the Court will only consider those that refer to new expenses and costs incurred in the proceedings before this Court, in other words, those incurred after submission of the pleadings and motions brief. 42. Finally, the State forwarded a “certification of judicial actions undertaken by the Justice of the Peace of Meanguera in the Department of Morazán, in relation [to] the girl Emelinda Lorena Hernández,” together with its observations to the annexes to the final arguments of the representatives, and asked the Court that this evidence be included under the terms of Article 57(2) of the Rules as it contains updated information. The Commission and the representatives did not object to its inclusion. Based on the aforementioned provision, the Court decides to admit the Official Letter No. 265/2014 of May 14, 2014, and the Court Record of the Justice of the Peace of Meanguera, dated May 15, 2014, both of which are included in the certification and, considering it useful for the resolution of the instant case, will admit the ruling issued on September 13, 2013, by the Justice of the Peace of Meanguera. Cf. Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of March 3, 2014, considering paragraph 14. 32 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 54. 33 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 146, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 55. 34 Therefore, Annex 15 to the motions and evidence brief will not be considered, since no date or source was provided and it was not possible to rectify that shortcoming, nor the newspaper articles included in Annex 30 to the motions and evidence brief, which are illegible and this defect could not be rectified. 35