with the final arguments, contains the police minutes of November 23, 1998, which are part of the internal file of the case related to the detentions and the criminal proceedings against the alleged victims. Several of the documents that comprise the record were included as annexes to the Merits Report. Bearing this in mind, as well as the usefulness of the document, the Court decides, in exercise of its authority under Article 58(a) of the Rules, to incorporate into the evidentiary record the text of the CCP, in force when the events in this case occurred.17 21. On August 5, 2021, on the basis of Article 58(b), the State was requested to provide a copy of the following: Order of the Ninth Criminal Judge of August 16, 1999 and the request for the precautionary measure of the deprivation of liberty of August 2, 1999. The State did not respond. On September 2, 2021, the Commission sent to the Court the aforementioned documentation, which has been incorporated into the record on the basis of the authority set out in Article 58(a) of the Rules.18 B) Admissibility of the statements offered 22. The Court deems it pertinent to admit the expert opinions19 and the statements of the alleged victims and their family members, provided that they meet the object defined in the Orders that received them and that defined the purpose of the present case.20 23. The Court also admits the oral statement of Dan William Barliza González, presented in a videoconference, as well as the statement of Fernando González, received by means of a videorecording.21 17 Available at: https://nacho20000.tripod.com/ENJUICIAMIENTO_CRIMINAL/ENJUICIAMIENTO__CRIMINAL.htm.1 On September 1, 2021, the parties and the Commission were requested, if they deemed it pertinent, to present, no later than September 7, 2021, the observations on the aforementioned document that they believed to be relevant. No observations were received before the deadline. The representatives, on August 13, 2021, the last day of the period granted to the State to provide that documentation, informed that they did not have it. The documentation provided by the Commission was sent to the representatives and the State, without a response on their part. 18 19 Two of the expert opinions, those of Nelson Orlando Mejía Duran and María Lucrecia Hernández Vitar, were offered by the State in its answering brief and were not accepted in the Order of the President of April 14, 2021 (supra para. 9). The Court, in its Order of May 7, 2021 (supra para. 9), decided to receive those statements as evidence de oficio. The Court received, opportunely and in writing, the statements offered by the representatives of María Angélica González, Laura Joselin González, Arianny Yosibel González González and Belkis Mirelis González González. It also received the expert opinions of Magaly Mercedes Vásquez González, Víctor Velasco Prieto and Alejandra Cristina Sapene Chapellín, offered by the representatives, and of María Lucrecia Hernández Vitar and Nelson Orlando Mejía Durán, ordered de oficio. 20 21 Note was taken that the State contested the decision of the President of the Court, adopted on April 14, 2021 (supra para. 9), to receive the statements by the means described. Venezuela argued that receiving oral statements by videoconference and receiving a statement by videorecording are actions that “have no basis in the rules.” The Court confirmed the decision of the President, pointing out that, for the reasons detailed in the Order of May 7, 2021 (supra para. 9), “the Rules offer a sufficient legal basis for the use of videoconference be it for hearings or for matters of evidence,” and that “the procedural rights of the State have not been affected” by the decision to receive a statement by videorecording,” which is “not contrary to the Rules.” (Cf. Caso González et al. v. Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 7, 2021, Considerations 4, 11 and 14.) 8