28 Human Rights Council of the Ministry of Justice on September 6, 2004, which the State presented to this Court on September 17, 2004 (supra paras. 35 and 54), because this evidence relates to supervening events, and was not contested or opposed, and its authenticity was not questioned. 68. In accordance with Article 44(3) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court admits the decision on the motion for extinguishment of the criminal proceeding, file No. 531-03, issued by the Fourth Criminal Court Specializing in Crimes of Terrorism on August 16, 2004; the appeal against the decision on the motion for extinguishment of the criminal proceeding, filed by the alleged victim’s defense lawyer on September 15, 2004; and the decision on the motion for extinguishment of the criminal proceeding, file No. 531-03, issued by the Fourth Criminal Court Specializing in Crimes of Terrorism on September 16, 2004; documents forwarded to this Court by the alleged victim’s representatives on September 20, 2004 (supra paras. 36 and 55), because this evidence relates to supervening events, and was not contested or opposed, and its authenticity was not questioned. 69. The Court incorporates into the body of evidence, the file of the trial in the military jurisdiction against María Teresa De La Cruz Flores, forwarded by the State as helpful evidence (supra paras. 37 and 56), under the provisions of Article 45(2) of its Rules of Procedure. 70. In the case of the newspaper articles, this Court has considered that, even though they do not correspond to documentary evidence stricto sensu, they can be assessed to the extent that they refer to well-known public facts, or statements by State officials, or corroborate elements established in other documents or testimonies received during the proceeding.27 Assessment of the Testimonial and Expert Evidence 71. The Court admits and accords probative value to the testimonial statement made by Álvaro Eduardo Vidal Rivadeneyra and the expert reports submitted by Carlos Martín Rivera Paz and Manuel Pérez González during the public hearing held at the seat of the Court on July 2, 2004 (supra para. 28), insofar as they correspond to the purpose established in the order of the President of May 19, 2004 (supra para. 23) and assesses their content in the context of the body of evidence, according to the rules of sound criticism. 72. In light of the above, the Court will assess the probative value of the documents, statements and expert reports presented in writing or made before it. The evidence presented during all the stage of the proceeding has been incorporated into a single body of evidence, which is considered as a whole.28 27 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 1, para. 81; Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 1, para. 65; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 51. 28 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 1, para. 89; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 1, para. 100; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 1, para. 68.