State forwarded evidence that neither the Court nor its President had requested, without justifying the submission of this evidence, consisting of, inter alia, 74 compact discs with audiovisual recordings “of all the hearings held during the trial of Raúl Díaz Peña,” after the answering brief. Regarding the compact discs, the representative argued that their presentation had been irregular because they constituted time-barred evidence and “[a]lthough it was true that the State possessed these recordings when it answered the application and did not include them at that time, it is also true that they contained elements that have been extensively discussed.” In view of the fact that they are time-barred and that none of the grounds for exceptions are met, the Court finds that it is not appropriate to admit the said compact discs presented by the State outside the appropriate occasion; consequently the Court will not consider them in its decision. Other documents provided by the State with its final written arguments 24. The Court admits, ex officio, pursuant to Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure, the documents provided by the State with its final written arguments that had been requested by the Court. Accordingly, it incorporates them and they will be assessed as pertinent, taking into account the body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. Similarly, the Court admits, ex officio, in keeping with Article 58(a) of the Rules of Procedure, those documents forwarded by the State with its final written arguments that were not contested or challenged, and the authenticity of which was not disputed, exclusively to the extent that they are pertinent and useful for the determination of the facts and the eventual legal consequences of those facts. Helpful evidence requested by the Court during the hearing 25. Regarding the helpful evidence requested by the Court during the public hearing held in this case (supra para. 11), the State failed to submit the decision ordering the removal of Judge Prado. Since the disciplinary case file forwarded by the State as an attachment to its final arguments shows that this is decision No. 2005-0238 issued by the Judicial Commission of the Supreme Court of Justice on November 1, 2005, and that the text of this decision appears on the web page of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, as advised in a note of the Secretariat of May 7, 2012, and based on Article 58(a) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the said decision is incorporated into the body of evidence of the instant case, ex officio. The parties were given the opportunity to present their observations in this regard. B.2) Admission of the statement of the presumed victim and of the testimonial and expert evidence 26. With regard to the statement of the presumed victim, the testimony of the witnesses, and the expert opinion provided during the public hearing and by affidavit presented at the appropriate opportunity, 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 para. 9). They will be assessed in the corresponding chapter together with the other elements of the body of evidence and taking into account the observations made by the parties.17 27. Regarding the statement of the presumed victim, the State made observations on some of Raúl José Díaz Peña’s answers during his appearance before the Court, and alleged that the content of some of them was untrue. The Court notes that the State’s observations attempt to discredit the probative value of Mr. Díaz Peña’s statement, but do not contest the admissibility of this evidence. According to the Court’s case law, the statements made by the presumed victims 17 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina, para. 13. 9