convening the hearing,70 during the public hearing,71 or after the public hearing.72 The Court notes that the State had been asked to provide much of this documentation in the order convening the hearing (supra para. 9) and that, during the hearing, the President of the Court asked the State to present documents as helpful evidence (supra para. 13), clarifying that this request would be completed by a written communication addressed to the State. 68. Furthermore, regarding the State’s observations in its brief of July 3, 2013, the State was informed that the Court had not forwarded it the documentation sent by the Prosecutor General’s Office, because this documentation had been sent to the Court by the State itself, through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, entity accredited by the State to receive official communications and notifications in relation to this case. Nevertheless, the documentation from the Prosecutor General’s Office was sent to the State and it was granted an additional time frame until July 26, 2013, to present its observations on that documentation specifically and, by a note of July 30, 2013, this term was extended until August 13, 2013, at the State’s request.73 The State forwarded its observations on the documentation presented by the Prosecutor General’s Office on August 13, 2013. 69. Accordingly, the helpful documents and information that were requested more than once at different procedural moments, namely by the Order of the President of the Court of December 19, 2012, during the public hearing held in this case, and following this, are incorporated into the body of evidence of the case in application of Article 58 of the Rules of Zapata v. Colombia, paras. 8 and 10; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, paras. 42, 44, 51 and 52, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 31 and 32. 69 Cf. Case of Uzcátegui et al. v. Venezuela. Merits and reparations. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 249, paras. 12 and 13; Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, paras. 10, 11 and 13; Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, paras. 10 and 11; Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244, paras. 9 and 10; Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 7; Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 9; Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, para. 12; Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro fertilization”) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, para. 12; Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24,, 2012. Series C No. 239, paras. 7, 11 and 12; Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs, paras. 13 and 41; Case of the Barrios family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, paras. 8 and 9; Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, paras. 14 and 15, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011. Series C No. 223, paras. 12 and 13. 70 Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, para. 11; Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, and reparations, paras. 24, 25, 28 and 35; Case of Uzcátegui et al. v. Venezuela, paras. 12 and 13; Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala paras. 10; 11, and 13; Case of Furlán and family members v. Argentina, paras. 10 and 11; Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, paras. 9 and 10, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 7. 71 Cf. Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 68; Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 7; Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 7; Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, para. 9; Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, para. 12; Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro fertilization”) v. Costa Rica, para. 12; Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs, paras. 7, 11 and 12; Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs, paras. 13 and 41; Case of the Barrios family v. Venezuela, paras. 8 and 9; Case of Furlán and family members v. Argentina, paras. 10 and 11, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, para. 9. 72 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, paras. 9 and 12; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia, paras. 8 and 10; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, paras. 42, 44, 51 and 52; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, paras. 31 and 32; Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs, paras. 7, 11 and 12; Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, paras. 14 and 15; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, paras. 12 and 13; Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs, paras. 10 and 11, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 16. 73 Cf. Notes of the Secretariat CDH-12,573/226 of July 12, 2013, and CDH-12,573/230 of July 30, 2013. 24