13 Court of Justice had been made aware of the presumed acts of torture and sexual violence allegedly suffered by Gladys Espinoza, and also to the presumed conclusions of these courts as regards the possible existence of torture based on reports and statements of the forensic doctors of the Institute of Forensic Medicine. Consequently, the Inter-American Court will consider the 2004 judgments in the criminal proceedings before the National Terrorism Chamber and the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court only in relation to its analysis of the alleged failure to investigate the acts of torture and sexual violence perpetrated against Gladys Espinoza that presumably occurred in 1993 and 1999. 38. Lastly, regarding the facts surrounding the death of Rafael Salgado Castilla, the Court notes that the Commission referred to them only as indications of the circumstances of the arrest and transfer to the DIVISE of Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles, who presumably was with him when they were intercepted on April 17, 1993 (supra para. 32). Therefore, the Court will consider them as elements to determine what happened to Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles. VI EVIDENCE A) Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 39. The Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Commission and the parties, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 4, 8 and 9). The Court also received documents it had requested as helpful evidence from the parties. In addition, it received “supervening” documentary evidence from the representatives following the presentation of the motions and arguments brief. The Court also received the affidavits made by expert witnesses Ana Deutsch, Rebecca Cook and María Jennie Dador, presumed victims Gladys Espinoza and Manuel Espinoza Gonzáles, and witness Félix Reátegui Carrillo, all of them proposed by the representatives. It also received the affidavits made by expert witnesses Moisés Valdemar Ponce Malaver, Federico Javier Llaque Moya and Ana María Mendieta Trefogli, proposed by the State. Regarding the evidence provided at the public hearing, the Court received the expert opinion of Julissa Mantilla, proposed by the Commission, as well as the testimony of Lily Cuba Rivas (who Gladys Espinoza met in the DINCOTE immediately after the acts of torture presumably perpetrated against her), proposed by the representatives, and of Yony Efraín Soto Jiménez, proposed by the State. In a brief presented by the Commission, the expert witness Julissa Mantilla subsequently presented a “supplementary brief” to her expert opinion. Lastly, the Court received documents presented by the State and the representatives attached to their respective final written arguments. B) Admission of the evidence 40. The Court admits the documents presented at the appropriate procedural opportunity by the parties and by the Commission, the admissibility of which was not objected to or contested. 14 The documents requested by the Court that were provided by the parties after the public hearing are incorporated into the body of evidence in application of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. 41. Regarding the newspaper articles presented by the Commission and the State, the Court has considered that these may be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case. 14 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Tarazona Arrieta et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 15, 2014. Series C No. 286, para. 26.