Judgment, because there is no record that they have been applied in this specific case, and it is not sufficiently clear whether they can affect the enjoyment of the rights of the presumed victims in this case. 65. The representatives also presented information on a folder containing a presumed Army report dated November 15, 1985, and other documents on the events of the Palace of Justice that it became aware of in June 2013, in the context of another criminal proceeding, following a judicial inspection conducted at the 13th Brigade. At the request of the representatives, the President of the Court asked the State to provide a color copy of this report, 72 and this was presented on November 7, 2013, and at the meeting held prior to the public hearings in this case. The State did not contest the admission of this documentation. Therefore, the Court finds it admissible under Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure. 66. On November 7, 2013, the State forwarded information and documentation concerning a decision of October 16, 2013, in which the Prosecutor General decided to assign the hearing of the criminal proceedings relating to the events of this case to a special working group, headed by the Fourth Prosecutor delegated to the Supreme Court of Justice. The Court notes that this information is subsequent to the presentation of the State’s answering brief, and therefore finds its admission in order under Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 67. The representatives argued that the State, in its observations on the helpful evidence, “in addition to providing specific observations on the documents submitted, included conclusions […] that are not derived […] from the documents, but rather are subjective inferences”; hence, they asked that the said arguments be rejected. The Court notes that the State’s observations refer to the helpful evidence submitted and its relationship to Colombia’s arguments in this case. Therefore, the Court does not find the representatives’ argument pertinent and considers that the observations are admissible. 68. The State indicated that the copy of the second instance judgment of October 24, 2014, against the Commander of the 13th Brigade, forwarded by the parties on November 5, 2014, is an unofficial version. It advised that it was not possible to provide an official copy owing to a strike of the judiciary. In this regard, the Court considers that, for the analysis of this case, the unofficial copy of this decision of October 24, 2014, together with its annexes, is sufficient and adequate for the Court to consider it in this Judgment, because no one has objected to its contents. Moreover, the Court notes that the representatives had already included their observations on this judgment in their brief of November 5, 2014, when they presented the copy of this domestic judgment. Even though the President only requested such observations after the judgment had been received, the Court considers that the observations included by the representatives in the said brief are admissible, because the acting President requested them subsequently. B.2) Admission of the testimonial and expert evidence 69. The Court also finds it pertinent to admit the statements of the presumed victims, the witnesses, the deponent for information purposes, and the expert opinions provided during the public hearing and by affidavit insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the Order requiring them (supra para. 11) and the purpose of this case. 70. The State asked that “when assessing the evidence, [the Court] take into account” that the statements of Raúl Lozano Castiblanco, María de los Ángeles Sánchez and Fabio No. 30, para. 50, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 213. 72 The representatives had presented a black and white copy with their brief of June 24, 2013. 28