victims due to the non-compliance of the decision of February 12. The Court notes that, although it is true that the Commission did not specify which persons belong to this sub-group, they are clearly identifiable since they were named in the Expert Report regarding the subsequent claims made by this sub-group on “fringe benefits” and “other calculations.” 30 Although the validity of the contents of that report was rebutted by the State, it does not affect the fact that these alleged victims are identified as such, which refutes the State’s arguments on the failure to identify the victims. 33. Thirdly, with respect to the State’s argument that the persons belonging to that sub-group must be excluded because they are involved in the domestic controversy that is being questioned, the Court considers that those alleged victims were identified during the domestic proceedings and that the validity of the domestic decision depends on the analysis of the merits of the case. Therefore, the State’s request to exclude those persons must be denied. 34. Finally, with respect to the group of 309 31 persons who have been added as alleged victims by the representative Meneses Huayra, 32 the Court notes that those persons are on the Commission’s list of alleged victims and, thus, the State’s request to exclude those persons is without merit. VI EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 35. The Court received various documents submitted as evidence by the Commission, by the representatives and by the State, which, as in other cases, are admitted in the understanding that they were presented at the proper procedural moment (Article 57 of the Rules). 33 36. The Court notes, in the first place, that representatives Valdivia Ayala, Guerrero Cassuso, Rossi Mérida and Valdivia Bocanegra submitted liquidations of several of the former workers with briefs of September 1 and 14, 2020 and October 7, 2021, prior to the presentation of the brief with requests and arguments. 30 That is: compensation for time of service, bonuses for July and December, payment of 30% for years of service, schooling, vacation pay for 90 and 91, May 1 holiday pay and educational allowance. 31 The Court has verified that the number of victims is 309 and not 310, since one of the victims appears twice (Enrique Maresco Atoche). 32 Cf. List “Of the remaining 1,789 alleged victims of the second (II) group: 310 are represented by Ms. Meneses Huayra (evidence file, f. 54031 and ff.). 33 Documentary evidence may be presented, in general and pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules, together with the briefs of submission of the case, with pleadings and motions and the answering brief, as appropriate. It is not admissible after those procedural opportunities, save for the exceptions established in that article (force majeure, serious impediment) or unless it involves a supervening event, in other words, occurring after those procedural moments. Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, paras. 17 and 18 and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2021. Series C No. 447, para. 39. 11