11 evidence into the body of evidence of the instant case, taking into account the observations forwarded by the State. 28. Regarding the press documents submitted by the parties, the Court considers that they may be assessed insofar as they refer to public and notorious facts or statements made by State officials which have not been rectified, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case and evidenced by other means.18 29. With respect to the testimonies and expert’s opinions, the Court consider they are relevant inasmuch they adjust to the purpose defined by the President in the Resolution ordering their admission (supra, para. 8), taking into account the observations submitted by the parties. The Court points out that the statements rendered by the victims’ next of kin cannot be assessed separately for they have a direct interest in the outcome of the case, and therefore, must be assessed as a whole with the rest of the body of evidence of the proceedings.19 30. The Court considers the documents submitted by the State during the public hearing as useful. These documents have not been challenged and their authenticy have not been questioned, that is why the Tribunal admits them into the body of evidence. 31. Furthermore, the Court admits the two compact discs forwarded by the State into the body of evidence; the first disc refers to the burial of the body of Mr. Germán Escué Zapata, and the second disc, refers to the delivery of the mortal rests of the alleged victim to their relatives, bearing in mind that they have not been challenged by the parties, nor even its authenticy questioned. Nevertheless, the Court, as in several occasions, 20, shall assess the content of such disc within the context of the body of evidence, taking into account that the State edited some of the videos. Finally, the Court admits into the body of evidence the documents forwarded by the State on June 21 and 25, 2007, in as much as they refer to the supervening facts relative to the new advances of the domestic proceedings which has been open due to the facts of the case and as to which the Commission and the representatives had a chance to rule. 32. As the evidentiary items incorporated into the body of evidence of the instant case has been assesses, the Court will proceed to analyze the alleged violations in the present case considering the facts which have already been acknowledged and those which may come to be proven,21 included in each chapter as pertinent. Likewise, the Court will consider the parties’ arguments which it deems relevant to analyze, taking into consideration the acknowledgment of facts and the claims made by the State. VI 18 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C Nº. 4, para. 146; Cf. Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina , supra note 9, para. 46 and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 62. 19 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C Nº. 140, para. 69, Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 7, para. 60 and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 64. 20 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 40, Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 44 and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 193. 21 Hereinafter, the Judgment of the instant case contain facts that this Tribunal consider them as proven taking into account the State's confession. Some of these facts have been completed with evidentiary items, in which case there appear the corresponding notes of the footnotes.