submitted by the parties, including statements and expert reports, adhering to the principle of sound judgment. A. - Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 24. The Court received documents submitted by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State. It also received affidavits from four alleged victims17, namely: 1) Gleimar Coromoto Uzcátegui Jiménez; 2) Paula Yulimar Uzcátegui Jiménez; 3) Irmely Gabriela Uzcátegui Jiménez; and 4) Yrma Jiménez, as well as the testimony of Claudia Carrillo. Moreover, it received expert testimony from Luis de la Barreda Solórzano, proposed by the Commission; Andrés Cañizales, Neugim Pastori, Juan Luis Modollel, Fredy Armando Peccerelli Monterroso, and Eva Riera, proposed by the representatives; and, finally, from Maria Alejandra Díaz and Liderly Montero Barrueta, proposed by the State. As to the testimony rendered at the public hearings, the Court heard statements from Luis Enrique Uzcátegui, alleged victim; from Jean Carlos Guerrero, a witness proposed by the representatives; and from Espartaco Martínez, a witness proposed by the State. B. - Admission of documentary evidence 25. The Court notes that the representatives and the State submitted various documents along with their final written arguments. The Commission asked the Court to reject the documents submitted by the State on the grounds that these were timebarred, but did not specify which documents it was referring to. The representatives also requested that some of these documents be rejected and submitted observations regarding the assessment of others. The State did not submit any observations. The Court notes that several of the documents submitted were already in the file. Given that it can only admit documents submitted with the final written arguments in the exceptional circumstances provided for in the Rules18, the Court considers that it is not appropriate to admit those forwarded by the State in its final written arguments which were not presented at the proper procedural moment. 26. Furthermore, given that the representatives submitted, along with their final written arguments, evidence of litigation expenses related to this case, the Court will only consider those related to requests for costs and expenses incurred during the proceedings before this Court, subsequent to the date on which the brief of pleadings and motions was submitted. 27. Also, considering that the State did not comply with the Order of November 3, 2011 (supra paras. 12, 15, 17 and 20) the Court accepts that the State had no objections and, accordingly, incorporates into the case file the documents presented by the representatives relating to the domestic court proceedings undertaken in the present case. 16 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al. ) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001, Series C No. 76, para. 51 and Case of Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 31. 17 The representatives did not forward the statement of Mr. Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui, indicating that he had decided not to testify for fear of reprisals. 18 Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 8