the inter-American public defenders and the Commission, respectively, indicated that they had no observations to make on the documents presented. In briefs of August 9, 2022, representative Jemio Mendoza and the State each forwarded their observations on the annexes. 38. Among the documents attached to its final arguments, the State included a letter of May 17, 2021, from alleged victim Patricia Gallardo Ardúz to the Attorney General in which she accepted the State’s proposal to provide her with medical care through the Universal Health Insurance scheme, indicating that this did not mean that she relinquished her petition before the Inter-American Court for better health services. Representative Jemio Mendoza contested the incorporation into the file of this document, arguing that it was time-barred. 39. Regarding the procedural moment for the presentation of documentary evidence, the Court recalls that, pursuant to Article 57(1) of the Rules of Procedure, this should generally be presented together with the briefs submitting the case or with pleadings and motions, or with the answering brief, as applicable. Nevertheless, during the public hearing, the judges questioned the parties about conversations and possible agreements that had taken place between the State and some of the alleged victims. Therefore, the document could help respond to the questions raised by the Court; it is therefore considered admissible. 40. Among other documents attached to his final arguments, representative Jemio Mendoza included a medical report on Patricia Gallardo from the Institute for Therapy and Research into the Aftereffects of Torture and State Violence (ITEI) dated February 14, 2022. The State contested the incorporation of this evidence, indicating that the report did not comply with the necessary formalities, and was not issued by a health center with the necessary equipment to be able to issue this type of report. 41. On this point, the Court finds that the State’s arguments do not refer to the admissibility of the evidence, but rather to its probative value. The document was presented in response to a request by the judges during the public hearing; therefore its admissibility is supported by Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The State’s observations on its content and probative value will be taken into account, together with the remainder of the evidence, when examining the merits of the case. 42. The Court notes that the other documents attached to the final arguments of the State and of the representatives were forwarded in response to requests made by the judges during the public hearing based on Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure, and their admissibility was not contested or disputed; they are therefore admitted. In addition, with regard to the Ombudsman’s Report “Límites en la Implementación del Sistema Único de Salud” [Limits to the Implementation of the Integrated Health System] forwarded by representative Jemio Mendoza, this Court considers that this document was issued after the presentation of the pleadings and motions brief; accordingly, based on Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, it is admitted. B. Admissibility of the testimonial and expert evidence 0171/2022 of the EAE [School for State Lawyers] and Specific Agreement on training courses; Report No. 25/2022 of the School for State Prosecutors on the implementation of training programs and investigations concerning forced disappearances; Report of the School for State Prosecutors; CITE Report DG-EJE-130/2022 on progress in training programs. 12