23 contain clear data which allow assessing the effectiveness of the medical care services these facilities may provide to the Sawhoyamaxa indigenous community, and even to any other community.” For its part, the Commission stated that both expert opinions did not “properly illustrate the situation which is the object of the expert opinion.” The Court, notwithstanding, considers that the foregoing expert opinions may be useful for the determination of the facts by the Court in the instant case, and therefore, it assesses them as a whole with the rest of the body of evidence, applying thereto the standards of reasonable credit and weight analysis and taking into consideration the comments submitted by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives and inasmuch as they are in accordance with the object set forth in Order of the President issued on December 21, 2005 (supra para. 18). 44. As to the compact disc submitted by the Commission together with the application (supra para. 10), the Court admits it into the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Notwithstanding, the Court shall assess the content of the above mentioned disc within the context of the body of evidence, as it has done in other cases,10 taking into consideration that it contains a video which was edited by the representatives of the alleged victims. 45. 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 State officials or confirm aspects related to the case in point.11 46. The Court finds helpful for the adjudication of the instant case the documents submitted by the representatives in their written final arguments (supra para. 25) which have not been questioned and the authenticity or truthfulness of which have not been challenged, whereby the Court admits them into the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 47. As to the documents tendered as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case (supra paras. 24 and 26), the Court admits them into the body of evidence of the instant case, pursuant to the provisions of Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure, taking into consideration the comments submitted by the parties (supra paras. 27 and 28). In particular, this Court decides to admit the statement given before a public official whose acts command full faith and credit by Mr. Carlos Marecos on February 13, 2006, submitted by the representatives as evidence since it may be helpful to facilitate the adjudication of the instant case and since it complies with the request by the President (supra para. 24). 48. As to the other documents requested as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the instant case and which have not been produced before the Court neither by the State nor by the representatives (supra para. 22), the Court points out that in order to have the greatest possible number of facts with which to form a judgment and substantiate its decisions, it is essential that the parties submit on their own motion 10 Cf. Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al, supra note 3, para. 193, and Case of Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 40. 11 Cf. Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al, supra note 3, para. 199; Case of López-Alvarez, supra note 3, para. 49; and Case of Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, para. 74.