Republic did not present specific detailed information on the reopening of the criminal investigation in 2007, or a copy of the corresponding file, but merely forwarded a five-page report prepared by the National District Public Prosecutor in this regard and two attachments. One of the attachments consists of the transcript of a copy of the letter allegedly handwritten by the presumed victim Narciso González Medina, the admissibility of which had been rejected by the President and the Court previously (supra para. 10 and 75, and infra para. 77), while the other attachment consists of an interview supposedly conducted with Jimmy Sierra by the Public Prosecutor on August 9, 2010, which is not signed. In their observations on this information, the representatives requested that the Public Prosecutor’s report not be admitted as evidence, because “it c[ould] not be considered a substitute for the judicial case file.” 77. In this regard, the Court considers that, although the Public Prosecutor’s report does not respond completely and in detail to the Court’s request for information on the reopening of the investigation in 2007, it is appropriate to admit the said document under Article 58(b) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and it will be assessed in the context of the body of evidence and taking into account the corresponding observations of the parties. However, regarding the attachments to this report, the Court reiterates the considerations contained in its Order of July 5, 2011, based on which it had not admitted, inter alia, the copy of the said letter (supra para. 10). The Court recalls that it was inappropriate that the Dominican Republic only submit the proceedings and actions that are part of the investigation underway designed to provide grounds for its defense in the international proceedings before this Court. In the said Order, the Court advised the State that, when submitting information produced during the said investigation, it “should forward all the information it possesses, because the isolated presentation of specific documents does not allow the Court to assess adequately either these documents or the investigation conducted by the State.” The Court advised the Dominican Republic that, if the said documentation did, in fact, constitute part of the evidence in the domestic investigation, it could submit it by presenting the complete information on the reopening of the criminal investigation and the copy of the respective case file, which the Court had twice requested as helpful evidence. Based on the above, it is unacceptable that the Dominican Republic has once again presented copies of two supposed probative measures in isolation, without attaching the complete file of the respective investigation. Accordingly, the Court finds that the two documents that accompany the National District Public Prosecutor’s report are inadmissible. 78. Finally, the State asked the Court to “exclude from the case file any document, statement and/or element of evidence that could be inferred from [the investigations conducted by the Police and Joint Boards], because they occurred before the Dominican Republic had accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court.” The Court ruled on this request by the State when making the pertinent decision on the preliminary objection of lack of competence ratione temporis (supra para. 53 and footnote 61). B.2) Admission of the statements of the alleged victims, and of the testimonial and expert evidence 79. Regarding the statements of the alleged victims, the testimony of the witnesses, and the opinions given during the public hearing and by means of affidavits, the Court finds them pertinent only to the extent that they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the order requiring them (supra paras. 9, 11, 64 and 65). They will 26