this document describes the coordinated repression during “Operation Condor.” The Court notes that the article published after the pleadings and motions brief, whose hyperlink was included by the representative in its brief of July 12, is related to the context in which the facts of this case took place, and it therefore admits the document.42 51. In a brief dated August 17, 2021, the representative submitted a number of documents referring to a domestic judicial proceeding, indicating that “it [was] not raising a new fact.” The State asked that the documents not be admitted because they were time-barred. The Court notes that the documents submitted are from judicial proceedings dating back to 2016. Therefore, because none of the conditions established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure apply, nor have the documents been requested by the Court, they are not admitted. 52. Additionally, the State and the representative forwarded different documents in response to the requests made by the President, pursuant to Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure (supra para. 12), which are therefore admitted.43 However, when presenting its final arguments, on June 11, 2021, the State submitted two other documents that do not correspond to the request made and whose submission was not justified on any of the grounds provided for in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Additionally, they do not refer to events subsequent to the answering brief. Therefore, they are not admitted.44 53. Lastly, the Court recalls that, in accordance with its case law, news articles 45 and audiovisual material 46 provided by the parties are admitted and taken into account when they refer to wellknown public facts or statements by State officials, or when they corroborate certain aspects of the case, as long as their source and publication date can be verified.47 Therefore, the Court decides to admit the documents that are complete or at the least, whose sources and publication dates can be verified. It will assess them, taking into account the whole body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion.48 B. Admissibility of expert statements and evidence 54. This Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements provided by affidavit 49 and during the public hearing 50 insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President 42 The following document: article published by France 24 on July 9, 2021, entitled "Condena definitiva a cadena perpetua en Italia para 14 represores sudamericanos por Plan Cóndo.”. 43 Annexes forwarded by the State in briefs dated May 14, June 11, July 1, and July 16, 2021 (evidence file, volumes XIV, XVI, XVII, and XIX, folios 17063 to 17830, 18147 to 21081, and 21108 to 21249), and annexes forwarded by the representative in briefs dated June 11 and July 15, 2021 (evidence file, volumes XV and XVIII, folios 17831 to 18146, and 21082 to 21107). 44 These are the following documents: a) certification of “the records of communication between the Secretary [of National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 3] with collaboration in case [No.] 2637/04, with the victims Anatole and Victoria,” via email, and (b) official letter of June 10, 2021, whereby the head of the aforementioned court sent the certification to the Undersecretary for Protection and International Coordination on Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights. 45 Cf. Annex V to the pleadings and motions brief (evidence file, volume III, folio 2735), and annexes submitted by the representative on September 8, 2020, and July 12, 2021, and by the State on November 16, 2020 (evidence file, volume VII, annexes on supervening facts, folios 15968 to 15975). 46 Cf. Annex X to the pleadings and motions brief (evidence file, volume III), and annexes sent by the parties in response to the request for evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (evidence file, volumes XVIII and XIX). 47 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, par. 146, and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 19, 2021. Series C No. 429, par. 19. 48 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76, and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay, supra par. 19. 49 The Court received the expert opinion of Francesca Lessa rendered before public attestor (evidence file, volume XII, affidavits, folios 16992 to 17057). 50 In a public hearing, the Court heard the testimony of Anatole Alejandro Larrabeiti Yáñez and Claudia Victoria Larrabeiti Yáñez. At the same hearing, the expert opinions of Pablo Parenti, María José Guembe, and Juan Ernesto Méndez were rendered, expert opinions that were also received in writing (evidence file, volumes XI and XIII, folios 17