11 this case, in keeping with Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court decided to incorporate this evidence into this body of evidence of the case. 42. The representatives and the State also submitted various documents as evidence, documents that had been requested by the Court based on the provisions of Article 58(b) of the Court Rules of Procedure (supra paras. 13 and 15). For this reason, these documents are also incorporated and their pertinent parts will be weighed, taking into account the whole of the body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judgment. 43. Finally, the Court observes that the State and the representative presented pleadings and evidence at times that did not correspond to the proper procedural moment granted by the Presidency. Thus in the brief of comments in regard to the acknowledgment of responsibility filed by the representative on July 19, 2010, pleadings were included that went beyond the requested comments and addressed various aspects of the cases. The representative was notified that the request for comments was not a new procedural opportunity for adding pleadings. Rather, it was only for commenting on the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State. On this particular point, the Court notes that the arguments included in those comments were presented in the representative’s final arguments brief. It is therefore unnecessary to rule on the admissibility of the pleadings filed outside the proper moment in the procedure. 3. Admission of testimonial and expert evidence 44. The Court will weigh the statements given before a public notary by the expert witnesses Samuel Abad Yupanqui and Jorge González Izquierdo and the testimony given by the witness Víctor Hugo De Los Santos León during the public hearing. The Court admits this testimony and finds it pertinent only insofar as it meets the purpose defined by the President in his Order to admit them (supra para. 8) and the purpose of this case, taking into account the observations of the parties. 45. The Court observes that the representative and the Commission presented their comments on the affidavits on September 28 and October 4, respectively. For its part, the State did not submit observations on the sworn statements given. (supra para. 9) 46. The representative requested that the Court “rule without taking into account” the expert testimony given by Mr. González Izquierdo. The representative argued, inter alia, that “none of the points it addresses [...] [was] strictly related to the dispute between the parties in this case,” and that the expert testimony had been given on a subject on “which there is no dispute,” as all the parties in this case shared with the expert witness “an understanding of the economic and labor context” in which the law decrees affecting the rights of the alleged victims where issued. In addition, the representative indicated that the expert witness report would have the result of “inducing an error from the Judges of this Court” by making them think that this case “focused on the form and policy of salary regulation,” while the position of the alleged victims accepts explicitly the suspension and elimination of the salary scale system and focuses only “on questioning the retroactive application of the Law Decree No. 25876 and on requesting the corresponding reparation.” 47. With regard to this, the Court takes note of the objections and comments presented by the representative. However, it finds that the expert statement given by Mr. González Izquierdo refers to questions of evidentiary value and not admissibility of evidence.23 Consequently, the Court admits the aforementioned report, without prejudice 23 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Serie C No. 197, para. 43; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Serie C No. 213, para. 57, and Case of Vélez Loor, supra note 12, para. 86.