the list of expenses incurred by FAMDEGUA and CEJIL – are documents issued following the presentation of the pleadings and motions brief and, therefore, constitute evidence of supervening facts. Therefore, these documents are admissible pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 29. Lastly, in a Secretariat note of September 22, 2021, the Court asked the State to provide as helpful evidence the “consolidated list of victims of the village of Los Josefinos massacre to which the State refers in paragraph 78 of its brief with final arguments presented on March 18, 2021, as well as any other updated record of victims that it has;” it also made the same request to the Commission and the representatives in case they had this information. On September 29, the State and the representatives presented the requested documentation. Pursuant to Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure, this documentation is admissible, B. Admissibility of the testimonial and expert evidence 30. This Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements made by affidavit18 and during the public hearing,19 insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them and the purpose of this case. 20 31. The Court notes that the opinion provided by expert witness Jo-Marie Burt was not provided before a notary public. According to the representatives of the alleged victims, this was due to difficulties derived from the COVID-19 pandemic21 and the consequent restrictions to movement and limitations to access to notarial services. For these reasons, this expert opinion is admitted. VII FACTS 32. In this chapter, the Court will establish the facts of the case based on the factual framework submitted to its consideration by the Inter-American Commission, in relation to: (i) the context in which the massacre in the village of Los Josefinos occurred; (ii) the facts relating to this massacre, and (iii) the domestic proceedings instituted as a result of the massacre. Facts prior to the date of Guatemala’s ratification of the contentious jurisdiction of the Court are described to provide background information. A. Context 33. From 1962 to 1996, Guatemala experienced an internal armed conflict that had a significant human, material, institutional and moral cost.22 The Commission for Historical Clarification Affidavits were received from Antonio Ajanel Ortíz, Maritza López Mejía, Sotero Chávez, Juana Leónidas García Castellanos de Regalado, Zoila Reyes Pineda, Elidea Hernández Rodríguez and Edgar Fernando Pérez Archila, and also from expert witnesses Jo-Marie Burt, Katherine Doyle and Marina de Villagrán. 18 19 The Court received the statements of Francisco Batres Álvarez, María Fidelia Quevedo Bolaños, and expert witness Paula Worby. 20 The purposes of the statements were established in the order of the President of the Court of December 15, 2020. When forwarding the statements and expert opinions, the alleged victims’ representatives advised that, owing to the situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States of America, where expert witness Jo-Marie Burt lives, it was not possible for her to go before a notary public or to obtain the authentication of her document by other means. They therefore asked the Court to admit her expert opinion with just her signature “based on the flexible criteria for the production and forwarding of evidence that it had decided to adopt in other cases owing to the pandemic.” 21 In particular, in 1990, a peace progress was initiated in Guatemala that culminated, in December 1996, with the signature of the Agreement on a Firm and Lasting Peace. Among the documents that were signed was the “Agreement on the Implementation, Compliance and Verification Timetable for the Peace Agreements.” Cf. Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2018. Series C No. 356, para. 30. 22 11