19. The Commission contested the admissibility of the documentary evidence provided by the State with its answering brief, asking the Court to apply the principle of estoppel.18 It justified its request by arguing that the State had provided information on the measures taken between March 14 and 19, 1994, for the first time after the case had been submitted to the Court. Hence, it argued that the factual framework determined in its Report on Admissibility and Merits had been established “based on the information provided by the parties and that, owing to its nature, this new information constitutes a substantial change in the State’s position.”19 The representatives indicated that, during the processing of the case before the Commission, “Guatemala never indicated or advised whether it had undertaken actions to try and find Mr. Gómez Virula alive and it was not until its brief answering the submission of the case [that it did this].” The State indicated that, “as a result of recent investigations conducted by the Presidential Human Rights Commission (COPREDEH), it had been possible to access better and more extensive information about what occurred to the detriment of the life of Alexander Yovany Gómez Virula, and it trusted that this evidence would help clarify the case.” 20. The Court notes that the contested documents were presented by the State at the proper procedural moment during the proceedings before it. Therefore, it admits the said documents. 21. Regarding the evidence presented by the State together with its final written arguments (supra para. 12),20 the Court considers that Annexes 2 and 3 relate to the questions posed by the judges during the public hearing, and therefore finds it pertinent to incorporate them into the body of evidence in this case. Regarding Annex 1, the Court notes that this already formed part of the evidence file in the case and therefore does not find it necessary to make a separate ruling on its admissibility. B. Admissibility of the testimonial and expert evidence 22. The Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements made by affidavit 21 and during the public hearing22 insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them and the purpose of this case. VI FACTS 23. The instant case refers to the actions of the State with regard to the disappearance and death of Alexander Gómez Virula, a trade union leader in a manufacturing company in Guatemala City. In its Report on Admissibility and Merits, the Commission included a section entitled “[p]ronouncements on violations of the human rights of trade unionists in Guatemala in the 1990s.” The representatives and the State did not refer to this point. The Commission objected to the documentary evidence with information on specific measures taken to search for the alleged victim, or that Guatemala had assigned state agents to undertake such measures as soon as it became aware of the disappearance and before the corpse was found. The Commission indicated that this evidence consisted of a single document recounting supposed search procedures conducted on March 16, 1995. Although the Commission did not indicate this explicitly, the Court understands that it objects to the report of the Section for Investigations into Missing Persons of the National Police dated March 19, 1995 (evidence file, folio 455). 18 In the Report on Admissibility and Merits, the Commission established that “the State did not report any search efforts prior to the discovery of the body; nor do any indications of a search emerge from the available information.” 19 The State attached three annexes to its final written arguments. Annex 1 consists of a “Copy of Governmental Decision No. 266 of September 22, 2016, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Guatemala.” Annex 2 contains “16 copies initialed by and bearing the seal of the COPREDEH Directorate for Monitoring International Human Rights Cases with information on the case.” Lastly, the State provided as Annex 3, “Five copies with slides that support the hypothesis of what really could have happened to Alexander Yovany Gómez Virula.” 20 21 Cf. Affidavit prepared by Julio Francisco Coj Vásquez on August 16, 2018 (merits file, folio 271). 22 Cf. Statement made by Antonio Gómez Areano during the public hearing in this case. 7