requested by this Court or its President (supra para. 10). In this regard, the State argued that the documentation presented by the representatives was not admissible because it was timebarred, in addition to being “legally irrelevant for this case,” and because some of it was presented “without any context” or was “out of date.” The Court notes that one of the documents presented by the representatives bears no relationship to this case, and is therefore inadmissible. 76 To the contrary, the Court notes that, even though other documents provided by the State and by the representatives were not requested, they could be useful to decide this case, because they help give context to other evidence provided to the case file, as well as some of the parties’ arguments. 77 Therefore, in accordance with Article 58(a) of the Rules of Procedure and having granted the parties an opportunity to submit their observations (supra para. 10), the Court finds it in order to admit those documents that are relevant for the examination of this case, and they will be assessed in the context of the body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judicial discretion. 62. Lastly, this Court notes that, in their brief with observations on the helpful evidence, the representatives included general observations on the final written arguments of the State, even though they had been advised, in a note of the Secretariat of March 25, 2013, that the time frame was granted to present observations on the helpful evidence provided by the State and did “not constitute a new procedural opportunity to expand arguments.” The Court notes that the presentation of observations on the final written arguments of the parties is not contemplated in the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and was not requested by the Court in this case. Therefore, the Court considers that it is not in order to admit the said brief, with the exception of the observations included under the subtitle “Observations on the documentary annex of the State.” VII PROVEN FACTS 63. In this chapter, the Court will establish the proven facts of this case, based on all the probative elements in the case file. A. Background to the criminal complaint and civil action against Messrs. Mémoli 64. Carlos Mémoli is a pediatrician and, in 1990, he was a member of the Management Committee of the Asociación Italiana de Socorros Mutuos, Cultural and Creativa “Porvenir de 76 In particular, the copy of a newspaper with the declarations of Judge Zaffaroni “to illustrate” precautionary measures in Argentina, identified as No. 2. 77 In particular, the State presented a complete copy of the criminal file of the proceeding for defamation against Messrs. Mémoli; a copy of a decision of April 6, 2006, in which Pablo Carlos Mémoli is admonished, and a copy of the newspaper La Libertad of March 6, 2013, all of which this Court considers useful for the complete analysis of this case. For their part, the representatives provided copies of documents concerning the civil action opened against them (copy of the remedy of complaint of December 11, 1996, judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of October 3, 1997, and judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of December 10, 1997), copies of documents relating to the administrative complaint made before INAM (copy of the decision of the National Mutual Action Institute of June 12, 1991, and copy of the notification of the National Mutual Action Institute of June 11, 1991), as well as documents related to the Asociación Italiana de Socorros Mutuos and the matter of the irregular sale of the burial niches in the municipal cemetery (copy of the publication of March 13, 1996, entitled “Asociación Italiana de Socorros Mutuos ‘Porvenir de Italia’”; copy of a declaration by a judge who was a member of the Italian Association; copy of the letter of Rolando Argentino Cristófaro, identified with the number 7; copy of ordinance No. 114 of December 21, 1984, leasing part of the cemetery to the Italian Association, identified with the number 8, and copy of a lease on the municipal cemetery, identified with the number 10), and a report of the Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS) on the Kimel case and the need to amend the civil norms that had affected Mr. Kimel’s freedom of expression, identified with the number 45, all of which the Court considers useful for the analysis of this case, insofar as they help to clarify, and to provide context to, some of its facts. 24