12 injurious accusations against the law enforcement officials […] even though it is not his place as an expert to make technically unfounded assertions.” This Tribunal admits the abovementioned pronouncements, taking into account the object of testimony established in the Order of the President of December 14, 2006 and the observations presented by the State, and will evaluate them according to the body evidence in the present case and the rules of competent analysis. 26. With respect to the press documents submitted by the parties, this Tribunal has found that these may be noted when they describe public and notorious events, or when they record statements by State agents, or when they corroborate other aspects related to the case.15 27. Regarding the journalistic articles published on the Internet provided by the common intervener to be admitted as supervening evidence (supra para. 12) which refer to the alleged participation of members of the National Police in the “death squads”, the Court points out that the Commission did not make observations. The State requested that the Court not admit said evidence because it was not supervening. To this respect, this Tribunal finds that said documents and the information that they contain are not directly related to the facts of the present case, and that, as a result, they can not be considered supervening evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal concludes that the mentioned documents do not satisfy the criteria established in Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure and does not admit them. Evaluation of the Oral Testimony 28. The Tribunal admits the testimony rendered by Gloria Giralt de García Prieto (supra para. 17(a)) before the Court to the extent that it conforms with the object of testimony defined in the Order of the President of December 14, 2006 (supra para. 12), and will evaluate it with the remainder of the body of evidence. Likewise, the Court reiterates what it previously indicated with respect to the value of testimony rendered by an alleged victim in the present case (supra para. 22). 29. With respect to the testimony rendered by Pedro Cruz Rodríguez (supra para. 17b), Fredy Antonio Ramos (supra para. 17(c)) and Virginia Lorena Paredes de Dueñas (supra para. 17(d)), this Tribunal evaluates their statements in accordance with the rules of competent analysis and to the extent that they conform to the object of testimony defined in the Order of the President of December 14, 2006 (supra para. 12). V PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 30. In the State’s reply brief, the State raised three preliminary objections: “Lack of Jurisdiction Ratione Temporis”; “Failure to Exhaust Domestic Remedies” and an objection related to the “Informality of the Application.” The Court will now proceed to analyze these objections in the order stated. * 15 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 12, para. 146; Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 10, para. 41; and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 10, para. 28.