-33the alleged victims’ next of kin (supra para. 69), applying the rules of sound criticism and bearing in mind the State’s observations. Assessment of the documentary evidence 71. In this case as in others,14 the Court accepts the probative value of the documents presented by the parties at the proper procedural opportunity that were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned. 72. Regarding the documents requested by the Court based on Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure which were submitted by the representatives (supra paras. 32 and 34), the Court incorporates them into the body of evidence in this case. Also, in application of the provisions of the said article of the Rules of Procedure, the documentation presented by the Commission, the representatives and the State following the presentation of the application, the requests and arguments brief and the answer to the application, respectively, are incorporated into the evidence, since they are considered useful in the instant case. 73. With regard to the statements made before public notary (affidavits), the Court admits them to the extent that they are in keeping with the purpose established in the order of July 29, 2005 (supra para. 27), bearing in mind the State’s observations during the public hearing (supra para. 31), in particular in relation to the statements of Benildo José Ricardo Herrera and Leovigilda Rosas Villalba. Moreover, since the alleged victims’ next of kin have a direct interest in the case, their statements must be assessed together with all the evidence in the case and not in isolation, applying the rules of sound criticism.15 74. In the case of the newspaper articles submitted by the parties, the Court considers that they can be assessed to the extent that they refer to well-known public facts, or statements by State officials, or corroborate aspects related to the instant case.16 75. The Inter-American Commission contested the evidence submitted by the State with its final written arguments, because it considered “that it was not offered or submitted at the corresponding procedural occasion; it does not correspond to the reports on supervening facts that were requested as useful evidence by the President of the Court at the end of the public hearing […], and it was not accompanied by an explanation about its late incorporation into the case file.” It added that “irrespective of the question of admissibility, there are serious flaws in the documents presented; which is the only conclusion that can be inferred from the material conditions in which the documentation was forwarded […]: incomplete, repeated, partially illegible, damaged and disordered.” It therefore requested the Court to “reject [this documentation] on the grounds that it is inadmissible and inappropriate.” The State argued, inter alia, that “the documents submitted as attachments to its final 14 Cf. Case of Blanco Romero et al., supra note 10, para. 43; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 10, para. 88, and Case of Gómez Palomino, supra note 10, para. 45. 15 Cf. Case of Blanco Romero et al., supra note 10, para. 45; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 10, paras. 91 and 95, and Case of Gómez Palomino, supra note 10, para. 50. 16 Cf. Case of Blanco Romero et al., supra note 10, para. 43; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 10, para. 88; and Case of Gómez Palomino, supra note 10, para. 45.