14 46. With regard to the documents, newspaper articles and books offered by the alleged victim’s representatives that do not relate to the requests made by the Court (supra para. 7), the representatives alleged that this is “additional evidence that, in some cases relates to new facts or proposals introduced by the representatives of the […] Argentine State during the public hearing […], while in others it is evidence relating to certain matters that have occurred recently, so that we would never have needed to prove anything in that respect previously.” In any case, the representatives indicated that this was “iure et de iure evidence, the authenticity of which could never be questioned.” The Commission did not raise any objections to the incorporation of this evidence. The State asked that it be “summarily rejected as it was clearly time-barred.” In this regard, the Court admits those probative elements that refer to supervening facts, which will be assessed together with the rest of the body of evidence within the factual framework being examined (supra para. 30). The remainder of the evidence offered on this occasion must be rejected as time-barred. 47. On July 2, 2008, the representatives forwarded documentation relating to the alleged victim’s state of health when the medical and psychological expert appraisals offered by the State were prepared. This information could be useful for determining the facts of the case; it will therefore be assessed in conjunction with the other elements of the body of evidence, within the factual framework being examined (supra para. 30). 48. The Court decides to incorporate into the body of evidence the documentation presented by the representatives with their observations on the evidence provided by the State with its final written arguments, insofar as it seeks to clarify the information provided by the latter, and also the documentation forwarded on August 29, 2008, that refers to a supervening fact. The State did not present objections to the incorporation of this evidence, so that it will be assessed together with the other elements of the body of evidence, only to the extent that it corresponds to the factual framework being examined (supra para. 30). 49. Regarding the testimony and expert opinions, the Court considers them pertinent to the extent that they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the Order requiring them (supra para. 6), taking into account the observations presented by the parties. The Court considers that, since Mr. Bayarri has a direct interest in this case, his testimony cannot be considered alone, so that it will be assessed together with the body of evidence in the proceedings.35 50. The Court admits the documents provided by the expert witnesses during the public hearing, because it considers them useful for this case; moreover, they were not contested and their authenticity and truth were not questioned. 51. Having examining the probative elements in the case file, the Court will now analyze the alleged violations, bearing in mind the claims made by the parties and the acknowledgement of facts made by the State (supra paras. 29 and 30) . VII ARTICLE 7 (RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY)36 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 35 Cf. Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Court”), supra note 9, para. 20; and Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 72. 36 In this regard, Article 7 of the Convention establishes that: 1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security.