Court requested that the parties, upon presenting their final written arguments, provide specific additional information and documentation. 7. On September 28, 2011, the State, the representatives, and the Inter-American Commission submitted their respective final written arguments and observations. Among their presentations, the Commission and the representatives provided, among other things, documents requested by the Judges of the Court during the public hearing, which were forwarded to the other parties in order for them to formulate any observations deemed relevant. On October 26, 2011, the representatives forwarded their observations of the annex sent by the Commission and the Commission informed that it did not have any observations to make regarding the annexes presented by the representatives. 8. On the other hand, on September 9, 2011, the Court received an amicus curiae brief of the Committee to Protect Journalists. 7 III JURISDICTION 9. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction, pursuant to the terms of Article 62(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to hear the present case, given that Argentina has been a State Party to the Convention since September 5, 1984, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on that same date. IV EVIDENCE 10. Based on the provisions of Articles 50, 57, and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its jurisprudence relative to evidence and the examination thereof, the Court will examine and weigh the documentary evidence submitted by the parties on various occasions during the proceedings, as well as the statements of the victims and the expert witness reports given via affidavit and during the public hearing before the Court, along with the evidence requested by the Court. In doing so, the Court will follow the rules of sound judgment within the applicable legal framework. 8 A. Documentary, testimonial, and expert evidence 11. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the InterAmerican Commission and the representatives, 9 as well as the testimony given before notary public by the following expert witness: 7 The brief was received by the Secretariat of the Tribunal on September 9, 2011. It was drafted with the legal advice of the firm Debevoise and Plimpton LLP and is signed by Jeremy Feigelson. Moreover, the Tribunal received a letter the same day as amicus curiae of the organization Article 19. However, this document was not presented in a working language of the Court for this case. The Spanish version was received on November 22, 2011, that is, outside the statutory period. In accordance with Article 44 of the Rules, that brief was not considered by the Court and transmitted to the parties. 8 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 Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 16. 9 The State did not offer any documentary evidence nor evidence of another kind. 5