7 (cfr. June 10, 1998 brief of the State of Ecuador; copy of the Official Register of the Government of Ecuador of October 15, 1997, number 173, pages 1 through 4, that contain the text of Law No. 25 “Reformation of the Code for the Enforcement of Punishment and Social Rehabilitation and the Law on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances;” copy of the Official Register of the Government of Ecuador of December 18, 1997, number 218, pages 1 and 3, that contain the text of Law No. 44 “Reformation of the Code for the Enforcement of Punishment and Social Rehabilitation and the Law on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances”; copy of the Supplement to the Official Register of the Government of Ecuador of December 24, 1997, number 222, pages 1 through 4, that contain the text of Resolution No. 119-1-97 of the Constitutional Tribunal”; copy of the Official Register of the Government of Ecuador of March 6, 1998 number 284, pages 1 through 3, that contain the text of law No. 72 “Interpretative Law of the second clause of Article 105 of the Law on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances”). 24. During the hearing Mr. Suárez Rosero, through his representatives, objected to the above-mentioned documents, based on the fact that the State had not submitted its brief on reparations during the time period specified by the President. 25. The Court deems that the brief submitted by the State can not be included in the body of evidence of the case, because it contains substantive arguments and a proposal for the payment of reparations. Therefore, the Tribunal will later specify the legal character of the brief (infra 43 et seq.) As to the references to the copies of the laws and the judicial decision submitted by Ecuador at the same time, the Court deems that their examination is useful for its decision on reparations in the present case. For that reason, in the exercise of the authority granted to it by Article 44 of its Rules of Procedure, which provides that at any stage of the proceedings, the Tribunal may “obtain, on its own motion, any evidence it considers helpful” it orders their inclusion in the body of evidence. * * * 26. On September 21, 1998 the Court asked Mr. Suárez Rosero for the submission of the evidence that, according to his statements, had not yet been available at the time he submitted his brief on reparations. 27. On October 19, 1998 Mr. Suárez Rosero submitted a brief on the costs and expenses of Mr. Richard Wilson. He also submitted copies of the “Time Sheet” of Mr. Wilson for this case, his plane ticket to the city of the seat of the Court and his hotel bills and expenses in that city, resulting from his attendance at the public hearing on reparations. On October 27, 1998 Mr. Suárez Rosero submitted a brief concerning his psychological treatment and that of Mrs. Ramadán Burbano, as well as the expenses of Mr. Alejandro Ponce Villacís. 28. The above-described evidence submitted by Mr. Suárez Rosero has not been contested nor challenged, nor has its authenticity been questioned, therefore the Court accepts it as valid and orders its incorporation into the body of evidence in the present case. * * * 29. On September 21, 1998 the Court requested from the State the submission of the list of official exchange rates for the sucre, Ecuadorian currency, to the dollar of the United States of America during during the years 1992 to 1996.