9 written arguments and, thus, the documents may be used and the argument over its supposed untimely incorporation is no longer relevant. As to the documents furnished by the representative, the Court: (a) notes that the Convention on the Status of Refugees is an instrument of international law and does not need any proof and (b) admits the rest of the documents since: (i) the document on expenses contains information on events after March 31, 2017, when the brief with pleadings and motions was presented (supra para. 6), but will not be considered by the Court regarding expenses before that date, for being time-barred15 and (ii) the other documents are helpful and are directly related to questions of the judges during the public hearing and, therefore, despite having been provided after the presentation of the brief with pleadings and motions, they are admitted under Article 58(a) of the Rules.16 The Court also admits the birth and death certificates of Pedro Daniel Carrillo López, submitted by the representative on August 16, 2018, since they were presented with the purpose of accrediting an event, the date of his death, which occurred on July 27, 2018.17 Similarly, for being helpful, and since it concerns a published legal provision, the Court incorporates de officio, as documentary evidence, the text of the 1992 Code of Criminal Procedure of Guatemala (infra footnote 59). Under the authority granted it by Article 58(a) of its Rules, the Court also incorporates de officio information on the monetary exchange rate published on the Web site of the Bank of Guatemala (infra footnote 224). 23. The Commission presented documents, marked annexes 1 and 2 to the Merits Report, by means of Internet links that were not useful. However, both documents are incorporated under the authority of Article 58(a) of the Rules, since both are part of the same document and neither the State nor the representative objected to nor made observations regarding them.18 B. Admissibility of the testimonial and expert evidence 24. In the public hearing, the Court heard the statement of the alleged victims Tomás Grave Morente and Natividad Sales Calmo and received the affidavits of Efraín Grave Morente, an alleged victim, and of the expert Claudia Virginia Samayoa Pineda.19 The Court finds it appropriate to admit the statements of the alleged victims and the expert Regarding the State’s comments on the lack of vouchers in relation to that document, the Court considers that those comments refer to their evidentiary value and not to their admissibility. 16 The judges’ questions referred to (a) the legal title to the land where the “Aurora 8 de octubre” Community was located and its relation to the documents marked as: (i) Property deeds of the land of the “Aurora 8 de octubre” Community; (ii) Accord signed between the Permanent Commissions of the Representatives of the Guatemalan refugees in Mexico and the Government of Guatemala and (iii) Accord on resettlement of the population groups uprooted by the armed conflict, Oslo, June 17, 1994, and (b) for the length of the sentences of deprivation of liberty with reference to the document that contains the computation of the sentences and (c) for the friendly settlement procedure with reference to the “communications sent to COPREDEH.” 17 Cf. Birth and death certificates of Pedro Daniel Carrillo López, issued August 8 and 6, 2018, respectively, attached to the communication of the representative of August 16, 2018 (evidence file, fs. 899 and 900). 18 The Commission indicated: (a) as annex 1 to the Report on the Merits, the document identified as “CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, Conclusions and Recommendations, paras. 85-88” and (b) as annex 2 to the Report on the Merits, the document identified as “CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, Volume VI, Illustrative Cases, Annex 1, Illustrative Case No. 3: Xamán Massacre.” Both documents are part of “Guatemala: Memory of Silence,” of the Commission for Historical Clarification that the Court will consider since annexes 1 and 2 to the Report on the Merits are a part of that Report and in view of the comments of the State (infra para. 26). The document was taken from the Internet: http://www.centrodememoriahistorica.gov.co/descargas/guatemala-memoria-silencio/guatemala-memoriadel-silencio.pdf (hereinafter the document will be referred to as “CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence”). The Web sites mentioned in this judgment were last consulted when the judgment was delivered, which was August 22, 2018. 19 The objects of these statement can be found in the order of the President of December 13, 2017 (cf. Case of Coc Max et al. v. Guatemala. Call to a public hearing, supra). 15