were allowed to present their observations. Considering them useful to decide this case, the Court admits the documents provided by the State and the representative during the public hearing as evidence under Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure, and will consider any relevant information they contain taking into account the whole body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 45. The State and the representative also presented certain documentation together with their final written arguments and also on two subsequent opportunities, in response to requests for helpful information and evidence by the judges of the Court at the end of the public hearing in this case, and by the acting President (supra paras. 10 to 13). The admissibility of the information and documentation requested was not contested, nor was its authenticity or veracity challenged. Consequently, pursuant to Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court finds it appropriate to admit the documents provide by the representative and the State that were requested by the Court’s judges or its President as helpful evidence. This information and documentation will be assessed in the context of the body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judicial discretion. 46. Despite the foregoing, this Court notes that the representative contested the admissibility of certain evidence provided by the State in its brief of June 24, 2013, with helpful explanations, documentation and evidence (supra para. 12), considering that this had not been requested by the Court’s judges. She also objected to arguments included in this brief “which should have been presented with its final arguments.” The Commission also noted that, in its brief of June 24, 2013, the State had “incorporate[d] legal arguments that […] should have been presented, at the latest, with the final arguments brief, and not on the additional occasion granted by the Court.” The Court notes that the State did present a timetable of facts and new evidence in that regard that had not been requested by the Court’s judges. In this regard, the State indicated that “in order to help decide this dispute, [it was presenting] a timetable of the facts of the case, based on information in the case file before the Inter-American Court and new information identified by the Peruvian State when seeking information to respond to the questions posed by the Court’s judges.” This Court considers that, even though the said arguments and evidence had not been requested, they may be useful to decide this case, because they help give context to other evidence provided to the case file, and explain some of the parties’ arguments. The Court also notes that the representative and the Commission were able to present their observations on the said arguments and evidence. Therefore, pursuant to Article 58(a) of the Rules of Procedure and having granted the parties the opportunity to submit observations (supra para. 13), the Court finds it in order to admit those documents that are relevant for the analysis of this case, and they will be assessed in the context of the body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judicial discretion. 47. The Court also notes that, in their briefs with observations on the helpful evidence, both the representative and the State included general observations on the final arguments of the opposing party and, in the case of the State, also on the final written observations of the Commission (supra para. 13). This Court points out that, when granting the parties a time frame for presenting observations on “the helpful information, explanations and documentation” in the Secretariat’s notes of July 5, 2013, the parties and the Commission were advised that this period did “not constitute a new procedural opportunity to expand their arguments.” The Court notes that the presentation of observations on the final written arguments of the parties is not contemplated in the Court’s Rules of Procedure and was not requested by the Court in this case. Therefore, the Court considers that neither the observations of the representative on the final written arguments of the State, nor the general observations of the State on the final written arguments of the representative and on the final written observations of the Commission, all included in briefs dated July 17, 2013, are admissible. 48. Lastly, the Court takes note that, with her motions and arguments brief, the representative forwarded the expert opinion of Ana Deutsch and the statement of J.’s mother, both provided by 16