18 48. The brief of final arguments of the State was presented in a time-barred manner; therefore, the Tribunal does not include it in the case (supra para. 28). 49. Regarding the articles published by the press presented by the parties, the Tribunal considers that they may be assessed when they include public or notorious facts or statements of State employees or they corroborate aspects related to the case.15 Assessment of the Testimonial and Expert Evidence 50. Regarding the statement given by Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez (supra para. 40(1)(b)), this Tribunal admits it in what it concurs with its object stated in the Decision of May 11, 2005 (supra para. 19). Given the fact that the alleged victim has a direct interest in the case, his statement cannot be assessed in an isolated manner, but instead within the totality of the body of evidence, applying the rules of competent analysis. The statements made by the alleged victims have a special value, since they offer relevant information on the consequences of the violations that could have been committed against them.16 51. The Tribunal also admits the statement given by Mrs. Teresa Reyes Reyes (supra para. 40(1)(c)), in what it concurs with the object of the statement, and it will assess it within the totality of the body of evidence. The Court considers that since she is a relative of the alleged victim and she has a direct interest in this case, her statements may not be assessed in an isolated manner, but instead within the totality of the evidence collected during the process. The statements of the next of kin of the alleged victims are useful in what refers to the merits and the reparations, in the measure a in which they offer more information on the consequences of the alleged violations committed.17 52. Regarding the testimony of Mrs. Gregoria Flores Martínez (supra para. 40(1)(a)) and the expert report of Mr. Milton Jiménez Puerto (supra para. 40(2)(a)), this Tribunal admits them since it considers that they are useful in solving the present case and considering the observations made by the State in its final oral arguments regarding the statement of Mrs. Flores Martínez, and includes them in the body of evidence applying the rules of competent analysis. 53. In the terms mentioned, the Court will weigh the evidentiary value of the documents, statements, and expert reports presented to it in writing or offered before it. The evidence presented during the process has been brought together into a single body, considered a whole.18 15 Cf. Case of Palamara-Iribarne. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 60; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 79, para. 134, and Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 96. 16 Cf. Case of Blanco-Romero et al., supra note 7, para. 45; Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 7, para. 91; and Case of Gómez-Palomino, supra note 7, para. 50. 17 Cf. Case of Blanco-Romero et al., supra note 7, para. 45; Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 7, para. 91; and Case of Gómez-Palomino, supra note 7, para. 50. 18 Cf. Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 7, para. 96; Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico, supra note 15, para. 99, and Case of Acosta-Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 49.