24. The Court notes that the Commission indicated that two attachments to the Merits Report,18 Annexes 2 and 3, formed part of the documentary evidence in the files before the Court in the cases of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers and the Barrios Family, both against Venezuela, and asked that this evidence be incorporated into the file in the instant case. Also, regarding another attachment, Annex 42, 19 the Commission indicated that access to the website of the Venezuelan Supreme Court of Justice was unavailable and, therefore, asked the Court to request the Venezuelan State to provide the judgment in question. 25. Regarding Annexes 2 and 3 to the Merits Report, the Court proceeded to extract a copy of the documents referred to, which were located in the files of the cases of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers and of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. However, it was unable to locate any document concerning the “Presentation by the Prosecutor General on the occasion of the issue of his 2005 Annual Report” indicated in Annex 2 and, therefore, it is declared inadmissible. Also, with regard to Annex 42, the State was asked to present a copy of the judgment in question together with its answering brief. The Court notes that the State forwarded the requested document and, therefore, it is declared admissible and incorporated into the file of this case. 26. Additionally, the representatives asked that the State forward copies of 13 documents that constitute “fundamental evidence,” because they were unable to access the domestic case file.20 Considering that the State forwarded the requested documents and that none of the parties contested their incorporation, the Court admits them and incorporates them into the body of evidence. 27. The Court also finds it pertinent to admit the statements made during the public hearing and before notary public,21 insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined in the order requiring them and the purpose of this case. 22 The Court also admits the representatives’ request to incorporate the expert opinions provided by Calixto Ávila23 and Cf. Annex 2: The Venezuelan Ombudsman. Report: Forced disappearances and executions. Annual Report 2001; 2002 Annual Report of the Ombudsman of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; 2003 Annual Report of the Ombudsman of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; 2003 [sic] Annual Report of the Ombudsman; 2006 Annual Report of the Ombudsman; Presentation by the Prosecutor General on the occasion of the issue of his 2005 Annual Report, April 25, 2006; National Commission for Police Reform (CONAREPOL). Characteristics of the Venezuelan Police; 2007 Annual Report of the Prosecutor General, annex 3: Assessment of the human rights situation in Aragua state between July 1996 and March 2003, prepared by the Aragua State Commission for Human Rights, Justice and Peace 18 19 2010. Supreme Court of Justice. Criminal Cassation Chamber. File No. C09-318. Judgment No. 134 of May 11, Those documents are as follow: (1) Autopsy reports Nos. 0147, 0177 and 0146; (2) Order to open the investigation; (3) Complaint filed on August 6, 2003, by Juana Emilia Loreto; (4) Record of admission of the complaint dated August 7, 2003; (5) Decision of January 18, 2007, issued by the Fifth Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of Aragua state; (6) Appeal filed on July 19, 2007, by the Public Prosecution Service; (7) Decision of April 1, 2009, Contingent Chamber No. 34 of the Appellate Court of the Criminal Judicial Circumscription of Aragua state; (8) Judgment of Contingent Chamber No. 66 of the Appellate Court, of December 14, 2011; (9) Order on admission and scheduling of hearing of February 24, 2012; (10) Order on postponement to June 13, 2012; (11) Order to open the oral public trial of July 11, 2012; (12) Judgment delivered on September 4, 2014, and (13) Order of October 28, 2018. 20 Affidavits were received from four alleged victims, two witnesses, and five expert witnesses proposed by the representatives, the Commission and the State. 21 They were submitted by: Sara Mier y Terán, Pablo Fernández Blanco, Gregoria Josefina Medina, Juan Carlos Castro Villalobos and Ana Cristina Bracho, proposed by the State; Dinorah María Díaz Loreto, Lisandro Raúl Cubas, Miguel Ángel Díaz Loreto, Bladimir Lenin Díaz Loreto, Jairo Alexis Díaz Loreto, Fernando Fernández and Claudia Carillo, proposed by the representatives, and Camilo Ernesto Bernal Sarmiento, proposed by the Commission. The purpose of the statements was established in the order of the President of the Court of December 7, 2018. 22 Human rights researcher. In the case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, he provided an opinion on the context of violence committed by national and state law enforcement forces in Venezuela; in particular, on the phenomenon of extrajudicial executions committed by police officers and the extent of the impunity that 23 -9-