37. The Court also observes that the representative Meneses Huayra submitted 11 new annexes, 34 together with her observations on the preliminary objections filed by the State, and two more annexes 35 with her final arguments. 38. The State opposed the admission of the annexes submitted by Ms. Meneses Huayra with her observations to the preliminary objections, arguing that they had been presented extemporaneously and that the representative did not offer any allegations, arguments or a clear justification on the matter. 39. With respect to Annex 6 to the brief on her observations on the preliminary objections, as well as to the two annexes with her final arguments, the Court observes that they contain information on events after the presentation of her brief with pleadings and motions and, therefore, are admissible under the terms of Article 57(2) of the Rules. 40. Regarding the remaining annexes submitted by the representatives Valdivia Ayala, Guerrero Cassuso, Rossi Mérida and Valdivia Bocanegra, as well as by the representative Meneses Huayra, the Court observes that those representatives have not provided a justification, in the terms of the aforementioned article, for their exceptional admittance inasmuch as they bear a date prior to their respective briefs with pleadings and motions. Therefore, those documents are inadmissible for being time-barred. B. Admissibility of the testimonial and expert evidence 41. The Court deems it pertinent to admit the statements made by affidavit 36 and in the public hearing 37 to the extent that they are in accordance with the object that was defined by the President in the order that authorized their receipt and the object of the case. 38 34 That is, Annex 1: Copy of Order 529 of July 1, 2016, issued by the Sixth Civil Court in File 225-1990, which adopted the Report of the Expert No. 240-2016-PJ-EV of December 3, 2015; Annex 2: Copy of Court Order 538 of March 16, 2017 issued by the Standing Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Callao, which confirmed Order 529; Annex 3: Copy of the Report of the Expert 9768-2017 regarding the action of amparo filed by the Office of the Legal Counsel of the Superior Court of Lima; Annex 4: Copy of Order No. 1 of June 14, 2017 of 9768-2017, which declares inadmissible the request; Annex 5: Copy of the Court Order of May 8, 2018 issued by the Second Constitutional Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, which confirms Order No. 01; Annex 6: Copy of the decision issued by the judge of the First Constitutional Court of Lima in File 8128-2014, of April 5, 2021, which declared without merit the request of amparo filed against Order 496 issued by Sixth Civil Court of Callao and against Court order No. 4 issued by the Standing Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Callao; Annex 7: Copy of the Report of File 19987-2011, relating to the remedy of amparo filed by the Office of the Legal Counsel of the MEF before the Ninth Constitutional Court of Lima, which impugned Order 437 of December 28, 2010 and Court Order 04 of June 8 issued in File 225-1990; Annex 8: Copy of Order 437 of December 28, 2010 and Court Order 04 of June 8, 2011 issued in File No. 2251990; Annex 9: Copy of the judgments of the Constitutional Court in Files 03088-2009- PA/TC and 5200-2011-PA/TC, of August 23, 2010 and September 7, 2021; Annex 10: FINAL MEMORIAL 1991-1992, of the Commission of the Dissolution of the CCTM, and Annex 11: the "(70) files," which contain the liquidations of the social benefits, calculations of interest, vacations, extra month of pay at the end of the year and the Additional Pay Increase, as well as the procedures and the API calculations tables of the Commission of Dissolution, to the maritime and port workers. 35 That is, Annex 1: Order 34, notified on May 6, 2021, decision of the First Constitutional Court of Lima, which declared without merit the writ of amparo filed by the Office of the Legal Counsel of the MEF, and Annex 2: Resolution 13, which upheld the challenge presented by the Maritime Workers and which left without effect the precautionary measure, agreeing to send the matter to the judge of the Sixth Civil Court, so as to leave without effect the suspension of Resolution 496 and Resolution 04 issued in File 225-1990. 36 Affidavits were received from Rocío del Pilar Mercedes Montero Lazo, Julio La Rosa Sánchez Bayes, Edmundo Villacorta Ramírez, Marco Antonio Lozano Huaracha and Joel Freddy Segura Alania, all proposed by the State. 37 Statements were received from Ernesto Alonso Aguinaga Meza and Dante Ludwig Apolín Meza, both proposed by the State. 38 The purposes of the statements may be found in the Order of the President of the Court of May 20, 2021. Available at: 12