13 65. The State objected to the inclusion of the appendix submitted by the Commission containing the report on the visit that representatives of the Human Rights Commission of the Chilean Parties of Democratic Reconciliation made to Peru. The State argued that it was without merit and invalid, inasmuch the report’s allegations to the effect that the State had failed to comply with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations had never been conveyed to the State via the appropriate diplomatic channels. 66. The Court is ordering that those documents that were neither disputed nor challenged and those whose authenticity was never in doubt are admitted into evidence. As regards the document listed under paragraph 64.e), to which the State objected, the Court reserves the right to evaluate it and, if it so decides, admit it into evidence. As to the allegation concerning the alleged violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Court finds that by now the allegation and the information to which the State objected are irrelevant and immaterial, given the Court’s judgment on the preliminary objections. *** 67. In its answer to the application, the State submitted the following instruments, among others, as evidence: a) b) decisions in the internal proceedings against the alleged victims;10 and documentation on terrorism in Peru today. 11 68. The documents presented and referred to in the preceding paragraph were neither disputed nor challenged, nor was their authenticity questioned. Therefore, the Court admits them and orders that they be added to the evidence. *** 69. On November 16, 1998, when the prescribed time limit for submitting evidence had already lapsed, the State submitted the alleged victims’ immigration records.12 70. On April 26 and May 10, 1999, the State presented documents having to do with the isolation of the alleged victims in their cells and the visits they had received at the Yanamayo Prison since 1998.13 10. Cf. The January 7, 1994 sentence handed down by the Special Military Court of Inquiry; the March 14, 1994 decision of the FAP’s Special Tribunal that upheld the previous ruling on appeal; the order to execute the judgment, dated May 3, 1994, issued by the Special Tribunal of the Supreme Court of Military Justice that took the case on a motion to vacate. 11. Cf. The Declaration of Lima on Hemispheric Cooperation to Prevent, Combat and Eliminate Terrorism, approved at the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Terrorism, held in Lima in April 1996. 12. Cf. Immigration records of the alleged victims, issued by the Interior Ministry’s Office of Immigration and Naturalization. 13. Cf. Report No. 16-99-INPE-DRA-EPMSYP/RP of February 24, 1999, signed by the Chief of Prison Records of the Bureau of Prisons and sent to the Director of the Yanamayo Prison in Puno