28 63. As regards the documents submitted as evidence, clarification and explanations given to facilitate the adjudication of the case (supra paras. 33 and 36), the Court incorporates them to the body of evidence of this case, under section 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 64. The State challenged, generally, the affidavits of the witnesses offered by the Commission and the representatives for being pointless, as the State “has not contested the information related to the efforts made by the next of kin of the alleged victims in the search for justice.” In this regard, the Court deems that said depositions can contribute to determine the facts of the instant case as long as they are consistent with the purpose defined in the Resolution of the President dated August 17, 2006 (supra para. 23), and consequently the Court assess them applying the rules of reasonable credit and weight analysis and taking into account the remarks made by the State. Furthermore, the Court points out that since said witnesses are alleged victims or their next of kin, their statements 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. 65. As to 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 given by 8 State officials or when they confirm aspects related to the case in point. 66. Regarding the documents and information requested to the parties (supra paras. 33 and 36) and which they have not submitted, the Court points out that the parties must lodge with the Court the evidence the latter may request them. In particular, the State did not inform, save regarding to only one person, who were the persons indicted or convicted in the criminal cases tried by military courts, who have been, or currently are, imprisoned and, if such was the case, whether they have been under pre-trial custody or as convicted in said proceedings. This prevented the Court from determining if such sentences had been effectively complied with. The Commission, the representatives and the State must submit any evidence requested, so that the Court may have the greater number of elements of judgment to have a thorough knowledge of the facts and ground its decisions. * * * 67. The Inter-American Commission included in the application a list with the 10 alleged victims of the events of the instant case, to wit: Hugo Muñoz-Sánchez, Dora Oyague-Fierro, Marcelino Rosales-Cárdenas, Bertila Lozano-Torres, Luis Enrique Ortiz-Perea, Armando Richard Amaro-Cóndor, Robert Edgar Teodoro-Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo-Meza, Juan Gabriel Mariños-Figueroa and Felipe Flores-Chipana, as well as 55 next of kin of said persons.9 The Court notes that no proof of the kinship ties of 46 of said alleged next of kin Cf. Case of Servellón-García et al., supra note 1, para. 50; Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 6, para. 55; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 8, para. 122. 8 Antonia Pérez-Velásquez, Liliana Margarita Muñoz-Pérez, Hugo Alcibíades Muñoz-Pérez, Mayte Yu yin Muñoz-Atanasio, Hugo Fedor Muñoz-Atanacio, Vladimir Ilich Muñoz-Sarria; Rosario Muñoz-Sánchez, Fedor MuñozSánchez, José Esteban Oyague-Velazco, Pilar Sara Fierro-Huamán, Rita Ondina Oyague-Sulca, Luz Beatriz Taboada-Fierro, Gustavo Taboada-Fierro, Ronald Daniel Taboada-Fierro, Carmen Oyague-Velazco, Demesia Cárdenas-Gutiérrez, Saturnina Julia Rosales-Cárdenas, Celestino Eugencio Rosales-Cárdenas, Juana Torres de Lozano, Augusto Lozano-Lozano, Augusto Lozano-Torres, Miguel Lozano-Torres, Jimmy Anthony Lozano-Torres, Marilú Lozano-Torres, Magna Rosa Perea de Ortiz, Víctor Andrés Ortiz-Torres, Andrea Gisela Ortiz-Perea, Edith Luzmila Ortiz-Perea, Gaby Lorena Ortiz-Perea, Natalia Milagros Ortiz-Perea, Haydee Ortiz-Chunga, Alejandrina Raida Cóndor-Saez, Hilario Jaime Amaro-Hancco, María Amaro-Cóndor, Carmen Rosa Amaro-Cóndor, Carlos 9