B) Admission of the evidence 11. In this case, as in others, the Court admits those documents forwarded by the parties at the appropriate procedural opportunity, which were not contested or challenged, and the authenticity of which was not questioned.10 The documents requested by the Court11 that were provided by the State after the public hearing are incorporated into the body of evidence pursuant to the provisions of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure.12 12. Regarding the news items, this Court has considered that they can be assessed when they refer to well-known or public facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case.13 The Court decides to admit those documents that are complete or that, at least, allow the source and date of publication to be verified, and will assess them taking into account the body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 13. Furthermore, regarding the statements of the presumed victims, the testimony of the witnesses and the expert opinions provided during the public hearing and by affidavit, the Court deems them relevant only insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order requiring them (supra paras. 6). They will be assessed together with the other elements in the body of evidence. In addition, in accordance with the Court’s case law, the statements made by the presumed victims cannot be assessed separately, but rather together with all the evidence in the proceedings, because they are useful in that they provide additional information on the presumed violations and their consequences.14 10 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al., supra note 7, para. 21. 11 In a communication of March 9, 2012, on the instructions of President of the Court, the State was requested to forward to the Court, by March 21, 2012, at the latest, the following documents related to the friendly settlement agreement: (a) the bill on the national prison system submitted to Congress on April 27, 2005; (b) the Special Regulations for the Operation of the National Prison System; (c) the timetable for implementation of the friendly settlement agreement, including dates, those responsible, and execution mechanisms, and (d) other document that authenticate the implementation of the friendly settlement agreement. 12 On March 27, 2012, the State forwarded a copy of the following documents: the bill on the national prison system; the Special Regulations for the Operation of the National Prison System; the timetable for implementation of the friendly settlement agreement; Note No. 363-D-PGR-2012, of March 12, 2012, addressed to the Secretary of State for Finance; Note No. 362-D-PGR-2012, of March 12, 2012, addressed to the Secretary of State for Public Health; Note No. 361-D-PGR-2012, of March 12, 2012, addressed to the Rector of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras; Note No. 360-D-PGR-2012, of March 12, 2012, addressed to the Secretary of State for Justice and Human Rights; Note No. 359-D-PGR-2012, of March 12, 2012, addressed to the Secretary of State for Security; Note No. 358-D-PGR-2012, of March 12, 2012, addressed to the President of the National Congress of the Republic; Note No. 357-D-PGR-2012, of March 12, 2012, addressed to the Prosecutor General of the Republic; Note No. 356-D-PGR-2012, of March 12, 2012, addressed to the Head of the State Secretariat for the Presidency; the friendly settlement agreement signed by both parties, and note sent to the National Congress by the President of the Human Rights Commission. 13 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 10, para. 146, and Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 67. 14 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of González Medina and family, supra note 13, para. 80. 7