8 or its President, the admissibility of which was neither disputed nor objected to.11 Also admitted were documents that the President, in the order of December 13, 2017, decided to incorporate into the body of evidence (supra para. 8).12 20. On February 16, 2018, pursuant to Article 58 of the Rules, the representative was asked for a copy of the proposed friendly settlement. The representative submitted it on the 21st, together with two other documents: a notarized statement made on the 19th by, according to the statement, the President of the Presidential Commission on the Coordination of Human Rights Policy for the Executive (hereinafter COPREDEH) and a copy of his appointment on March 17, 2016. It admitted that the statement “was made after the public hearing.” The State claimed that these two documents were time-barred and asked that they not be considered since “they were not requested.” The Court notes that the copy of the appointment of the President of COPREDEH was not requested. In addition, a reading of the statement, also not requested, shows that it was made to be presented to the Court and that it refers to events prior to the hearing. Therefore, in view of the request of the State, the Court does not admit these two documents, but it does admit the proposed friendly settlement, since it was requested. 21. Together with its final written arguments, the State presented five documentary annexes,13 and the representative seven.14 The representative requested that four of the five State annexes not be admitted as time-barred but noted that they were part of the evidence prior to their presentation by the State. It asked that the annex containing “documents of the National Reparations Program” (hereinafter also “the PNR”) “be taken into account.” The State argued that six of the seven annexes submitted by the representative should not be considered by the Court, for being time-barred. As to the others, referring to expenses of the representative, it stated that its presentation was not timely and that there was no documentation to support the claimed disbursements. 22. The Court, with respect to the documents submitted by the State: (a) admits the “documents of the National Reparations Program,” acknowledging the consent of and the reasons given by the representative and (b) notes that, as the representative pointed out, the other documents were incorporated as evidence before the State submitted its final Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140 and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 35, para. 173. 12 That order incorporated into the body of evidence, as documentary evidence, video recordings of the statements of 17 persons and of four expert opinions offered in other proceedings before the Court. The expert opinions were those of Alejandro Rodríguez and Cristian Correa, offered in the Members of the Village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala case, as well as the expert opinions given by Michael Paul Hermann, Juan Méndez and Rosalina Tuyuc in the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala case. The video recordings included statements of the following persons: Atilina Hernández Maldonado, Efraín Grave Morente, Eliseo Hernández Morales, Florinda Sales Jacinto, José Coc Cajbón, María Medina, María Miguel, Mario Alberto Ramírez Hernández, Manuela Toma Gómez, Natividad Sales Calmo, Pedro Coc Chén, Petrona Miguel Méndez, Ramón Mateo, Rolando Hernández Maldonado, Ricardo Pop Caal, Santos Choc Coc and Tomás Grave Morente. The incorporation of the expert opinions was requested by the Commission and the statements were submitted by the representative. Cf. Caso Coc Max et al. v. Guatemala. Call to a public hearing, supra, considering paragraphs 12 to 20 and operating paragraphs 11 and 12. 13 Three are statements before the First Sentencing Court for Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes by (a) Efraín Grave Morente; (b) Natividad Sales Calmo, and (c) Tomás Grave Morente. The other two are “photographs of the place of the incident” and (d) “documents of the National Reparations Program.” 14 They are the following: (a) Document containing the calculation of the sentences; (b) Property deeds of the land of the “Aurora 8 de octubre” Community; (c) Agreement signed by the Permanent Commissions of Representatives of Guatemalan Refugees in Mexico and the Government of Guatemala; (d) Communications sent to COPREDEH; (e) Documentation that supports expenses made by the representative; f) Accord on resettlement of the population groups uprooted by the armed conflict, Oslo, June 17, 1994, and (g) Convention on the Status of Refugees. 11