18 answering them. The Court notes that the arguments of the representatives are not developed in the attachments that were received in May, but rather in the pleadings and motions brief that the State received on April 10, 2008. Consequently, even after the extension granted, ex officio, by the President, the State had an additional four weeks and two days to the period established in the Rules of Procedure to consider the representatives’ arguments while awaiting the attachments. The Court also recalls that the representatives are not allowed to include new facts in their brief, and that the factual framework of the case before the Court is established by the facts set out in the Commission’s application. 64. Based on the foregoing, the Court does not observe the alleged prejudices to the State’s defense, to the adversarial principle, or an imbalance between the parties, and therefore admits the pleadings and motions brief and the evidence that accompanies it. B. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 65. The Court received the testimony of the witnesses and expert witness indicated in this section51 on the issues mentioned below. This testimony was given before notary public52 or the latter authenticated the deponent’s signature. The content of these statements is included in the corresponding chapter: (1) Arlei José Escher, (2) Delfino José Becker and (3) Pedro Alves Cabral. Presumed victims, proposed by the Inter-American Commission. Among other aspects, they testified on: (a) the connections between ADECON and COANA and MST; (b) the illegal interception and monitoring of the telephone lines of the said organizations; (c) the actions taken in the domestic sphere to have the interception suspended, the recordings destroyed and the authors of these acts sanctioned, and (d) the personal consequences and the consequences for ADECON and COANA of the dissemination of the recordings. (4) Marli Brambilla Kappaum. Member of COANA and ADECON, who worked in the administrative area of the former organization at the time of the facts; witness proposed by the representatives. Among other aspects, she testified about the telephone interception, the dissemination of her conversations in the press, the presumed effects, and the alleged harassment of members of COANA. (5) Teresa Cofré. Legal adviser to COANA and ADECON, witness proposed by the 51 In communications dated November 10 and 14, 2008, the Inter-American Commission respectively: (i) advised that it had not been possible to obtain the statement of Dalton Luciano de Vargas and (ii) requested that the expert witness, Luiz Flávio Gomes, convened by the Court to provide his opinion during the public hearing, should be allowed to present this expert opinion by means of a statement sworn before notary public (merits file, tome III, folios 962 and 1041). The request was accepted by the Court on November 18, 2008. Also, in a communication of November 14, 2008 (merits file, tome III, folio 1042 and in the meeting held before the public hearing, the representatives asked the Court to allow the substitution of the witness, Avanílson Alves Araújo, convened to give his testimony during the public hearing, by the witness, Teresa Cofré, who had already submitted her statement before notary public. During this prior meeting, the State and the Inter-American Commission agreed to the representatives’ request, and the President decided to receive the expanded testimony of Teresa Cofré during the public hearing. The representatives did not submit the expert opinion of Carlos Walter PortoGonçalves. 52 On October 16 2008, the representatives asked the Court to allow the alleged victims, witnesses and expert witnesses they had offered, who should have made their statements before notary public, to provide their testimonies and expert opinions before the official in the Prosecutor General’s Office, who is responsible for authenticating documents and has “competence to guarantee the presumption of truth of the statements.” In this way, payment of notary fees would be avoided. In a note of October 24, 2008, the Court authorized the representatives’ request. On November 4, 2008, the Inter-American Commission submitted a similar request, which was granted by the Court on November 6, 2008. Cf. Notes de la Secretariat: CDH-12.353/066 of October 24, 2008 and CDH-12.353/1070 of November 6, 2008 (merits file, tome III, folios 914 and 952, respectively).