23 included therein or the sources consulted for its elaboration. Likewise, even though the State mentioned that the report does not analyze individual cases “in detail���, the Tribunal points out that said document contains specific information on the alleged arrest and subsequent forced disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, which has not been objected by the State. Similarly, the Court observes that as a historical report, the reference made to contextual facts, that is, those that refer to the general phenomenon of forced disappearance in Mexico, results relevant to this case, in attention to that established in paragraphs 116 through 117 of the present Judgment. 76. Based on the aforementioned, the Tribunal decides to grant evidentiary value to the Report of the Special Prosecutors’ Office in all those aspects related to the factual grounds of the present case, taking into account the complete body of evidence, as well as that established by the Tribunal in Chapter VIII (infra paras. 116 and 117) of the present judgment. 77. Regarding “[t]he journalistic notes” presented by the representatives, the State mentioned that “[t]hey shall be assessed taking into account that they are drawn up with the objective of capturing the reader’s attention and thus have the opportunity of achieving a greater marketing of the newspaper in which they are included; [and that] therefore, the veracity of said notes is decreased.” In this sense, the Court verified that several of the press documents forwarded by the representatives are incomplete in their text and, therefore, the source, date, and page of the publication cannot be seen in several of them. However, none of the parties objected those documents based on that, nor did they question their authenticity. In that sense, as has been stated on multiple occasions, the Tribunal considers that the press documents can be assessed as long as they refer to public and notorious acts or statements made by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects regarding the case.53 Therefore, in the present case, those documents that are complete or in which, at least, the source and date of the publication can be verified will be considered. 78. Regarding the documentary evidence that consists of a “[l]ist of probable responsible parties” in the present case, which was provided by the representatives, the State indicated that “[i]t is completely unnecessary since the […] Court does not have the ability to determine the criminal responsibility of specific individuals,” reason for which it requested that the Tribunal dismiss it. The Court considers it appropriate to state, as it has done on other occasions, that “[i]t has the authority to establish the international responsibility of the States based on the violation of human rights, but not to investigate and punish the behavior of the State agents that participated in those violations.”54 79. However, the Court observes that according to that mentioned by the representatives, the mentioned list “was prepared based on the documents that are present in the preliminary inquiry.” Likewise, that the State did not invalidate said information, but instead their objection refers to the Tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction to determine the individual criminal responsibility. Additionally, the Court points out that, despite the fact that it was requested by the President of the Court as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (infra paras. 88 through 92), the State did not forward to the Court a copy of the preliminary inquiry (infra paras. 89 through 92) based on which the representatives stated that the mentioned list was prepared. In that sense, given that said preliminary inquiry is 53 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 24, para. 146; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 25, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 32, para. 70. 54 Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 90 and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 92.