- 23 - the case, pursuant to Article 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure. Regarding Law 1312 of 2009, and the laws concerning the imprisonment of members of the Army, since they are public knowledge and useful for deciding the instant case, they are incorporated. Furthermore, certain documents provided by the representatives63 were not intended to prove specific facts, but to found legal arguments, so they are not considered to be true probative elements; rather, they will be taken into account by the Court as part of the representatives’ arguments. Lastly, the Court finds that the newspaper articles that refer to exchanges between Iván Cepeda and José Obdulio Gaviria do not form part of the purpose of the case, so they will not be incorporated into the body of evidence, nor will the application for protection of constitutional rights (acción de tutela) filed by the former in that regard.64 59. Regarding the documentation forwarded by the State as helpful evidence (supra para. 12), the Court decides to admit it based on its usefulness, in application of Article 47(1) of the Rules of Procedure, bearing in mind the observations of the parties. With regard to the documents from the file of Investigation No. 329 that is being processed before the office of the 26th Special Prosecutor of the Human Rights Unit, also transmitted by the State as helpful evidence, initially, the State alleged the confidential nature of the investigation in order not to send this documentation; nevertheless, it was ultimately forwarded. This type of restriction can be respected in domestic proceedings, because the dissemination of certain information at a preliminary stage of the investigations could obstruct them or prejudice the individuals involved. However, for the effects of the Court’s international jurisdiction, it is the State that controls the means to clarify facts that took place on its territory65 so that, as the parties were advised opportunely, the Court respects the due confidentiality of this documentation and incorporates it into the body of evidence. 60. Regarding the newspaper articles submitted by the parties, the Court has considered that they can be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case.66 61. The State asked the Court, “as a general rule,” not to admit as evidence any documents that were not directly related to aspects of this case that subsist as points in litigation following its acknowledgement of responsibility. The Court takes note of this observation of the State, in relation to its prior considerations set out in the preceding chapter (supra paras. 50 to 52); thus the relevance or probative value of the 63 The following attachments: “Chart 1. Organization chart of presumed participants in the extrajudicial execution of Manuel Cepeda. Responsible by act and by omission”; “Table 1. Legal framework applicable to the military demobilization process”; “Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment T-1319 of 2001, Presiding Judge, Rodrigo Uprimmy Yepes”; “Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment C-265 of 1994, Presiding Judge, Alejandro Martínez Caballero”, and “List of cases of members of the Armed Forces interned in military facilities” (evidence file, tome XXII, attachments 1, 2, 8, 9 and 19 to the brief with final arguments of the representatives, folios 9052, 9054 to 9059, 9103 to 9132, 9134 to 9160 and 9207 to 9211). 64 Cf. evidence file, tome XXII, attachments 7, 14, 16 and 17 to the final arguments brief of the representatives, folios 9080 to 9101, 9189 to 9190, 9195 to 9196, 9198 to 9202 and 9204 to 9205. 65 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 36, para. 136; Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 106, and Yatama v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 134. See also, Case of González et al. (“Campo Algodonero”) v. Mexico, Order of the Inter-American Court of January 19, 2009, considering paragraph 59, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 24, paras. 91 and 92. 66 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 36, para. 146; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 57, para. 67, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 24, para. 77.