for submitting new facts and/or additional legal arguments, because the parties would be unable to respond to them. Consequently, in its decision, this Court will only consider the final written arguments that are strictly related to the evidence and legal arguments that were provided in the motions and arguments brief or during the hearing (supra para. 33), or the helpful evidence requested by a judge or the Court, which, if necessary, will be indicated in the corresponding section of this Judgment. To the contrary, any new argument presented in the final written 28 In this regard, the Court will take into arguments will be inadmissible because it is time-barred. account the observations of the parties and the whole body of evidence in order to assess the said brief, pursuant to the rules of sound judicial discretion. C.2 Admissibility of certain parts in English of the final written arguments 35. The Court notes that the State objected to the admissibility of certain parts of the representative’s brief with final arguments that were originally submitted in English. Thus, the Court observes that on the day the time frame expired, June 16, 2013, the representative presented her final arguments brief with two chapters and some citations in English. Following a request by the 29 on June 18, 2013, the representative Secretariat, on the instructions of the acting President, presented the translation of the chapters on “[f]inal arguments on gender” and on “[g]eneral comments concerning reparation in this case.” 36. In this regard, first, the Court notes that the complete version of the representative’s final arguments brief was presented within the corresponding time frame, but with certain parts in a language that was not the working language for this case. The respective translation was presented two days later. Taking into account that this translation was presented within the 21-day period 30 established in Article 28(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure for the presentation of originals, the Court finds that the initial presentation in English did not affect the State’s right of defense or the legal certainty and procedural balance between the parties, 31 and it did not give rise to a disproportionate burden for the State that could justify its inadmissibility. The final written arguments of the representative were sent to the State, together with the respective translation, so that it was able to read the said brief in its entirety in the working language of the case, without any delay, at the same time the representative was able to examine the final written arguments of the State, which were forwarded at the same time. In addition, the translation presented two days after the expiration of the time frame did not represent new arguments, but the same arguments presented within the time frame, but in another language, so that it did not impair the procedural balance between the parties. Consequently, the Court admits all the representative’s final written arguments, of which the translation presented on June 18, 2013, forms an integral party, without detriment to the observations made in paragraphs 33 and 34 of this Judgment. Furthermore, regarding “the other parts in English of the final written arguments” of the representative that the State asked the Court not to admit, the Court has verified that they are citations of norms, case law or the initial petition before the Commission, all of which was originally in English. Therefore, the Court does not consider it in order to declare these parts of the above-mentioned brief of the representative inadmissible either. 28 Thus, the representative’s argument that the application of the procedural aspect of Decree 25,475 constituted a retroactive application of a less favorable criminal law that prejudiced Ms. J. was time-barred, because it was only submitted in her brief with final arguments. 29 On June 17, 2013, on the instructions of the acting President, the Court’s Secretariat asked the representative to “forward as soon as possible the translation into Spanish of the sections of the said brief that were written in English; particularly, as regards the arguments.” Nevertheless, on that occasion, the representative was advised that “the Court w[ould] determine the admissibility of the parts of the said brief that were forwarded in English at the appropriate procedural moment.” 30 Similarly, see Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 15. 31 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 13, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 60. 13