time she was interned in the Miguel Castro Castro Prison prior to the events that took place from May 6 to 9, 1992, on which this Court ruled in the said case. C) On the admissibility of certain arguments of the representative C.1 Admissibility of arguments during the public hearing and in the final written arguments 32. As mentioned previously, in this case the Court has declared inadmissible the legal arguments and the claims for reparation presented by representative after the appropriate time frame established in Article 40(d) of the Rules of Procedure had expired (supra para. 6). Despite this, the Court observes that Article 29(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establishes that “[w]hen victims, alleged victims, or their representatives; the defendant State or, if applicable, the petitioning State, enter a case at a later stage in the proceedings, they shall participate in the proceedings at that stage.” In this regard, as in other cases, the Court may allow the parties to take part in certain procedural measures, taking into account the stages that have expired based 24 on the appropriate procedural moment. The Court also observes that, contrary to other cases, in the instant case only part of the motions and arguments brief was considered inadmissible because it was time-barred. The other arguments of the representative contained in this brief were presented in due form and at the appropriate time, so that they are admissible insofar as they refer to the factual framework and purpose of this case. 33. The Court notes that the representative had the procedural opportunity to participate fully in the public hearing and, inter alia, to present her final oral and written arguments, which included legal arguments and claims concerning reparations. In this regard, the Court considers that all the legal arguments submitted during the said hearing are admissible, as well as those included in the final written arguments that are related to the legal arguments submitted during the hearing, and the answers and evidence strictly related to the questions posed by the judges during the 25 Nevertheless, the Court finds that, due to the principle of procedural preclusion, the hearing. specific claims of the representative with regard to reparations are not admissible, with the exception of those referring to the costs and expenses incurred following the presentation of the 26 (infra para. 421). The Court also finds inadmissible the arguments motions and arguments brief concerning violations of the American Convention or the Convention of Belém do Pará submitted by the representative after her motions and arguments brief and that are additional to those analyzed 27 without prejudice to the Court’s authority to take the by the Commission in its Merits Report, corresponding legal decisions. 34. The State observed that, in the final written arguments, the representative had incorporated facts and arguments that had not been presented in her motions and arguments brief. In this regard, the Court recalls that, essentially, the final written arguments provide an opportunity to systematize the legal and factual arguments presented at the opportune moment, and not a stage 24 Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 19. 25 Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 20. 26 This has been the consistent criterion of the Court in relation to costs and expense. See, inter alia, Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 24, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, para. 49. 27 In particular, the following are inadmissible: the alleged violations of Article 11 of the Convention based on the protection of the presumed victim’s reputation, the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 24 of the Convention based on the presumed gender-based acts of violence, and the alleged violations of Articles 4(b), 4(c), 4(e), 7(a), 7(f) and 7(g) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, as well as the representative’s request to consider the presumed acts of gender-based violence as crimes against humanity. 12