of the Judgment. To the contrary, any new argument presented in the final written arguments will be inadmissible, because it is time-barred.24 Thus, the Court will take into account the observations of the parties and the body of evidence as a whole to assess the said brief, according to the rules of sound judicial discretion. 23. In particular, with its final written arguments, the State forwarded specific documents to answer the questions posed by the judges, as well as several testimonies and judicial decisions. The representatives also submitted documents to answer the questions posed by the judges during the hearing, together with additional evidence, and they made new legal pleadings and claims for reparations. Consequently, regarding the said documents and arguments, the Court will only admit those provided to answer the questions posed by the judges during the hearing. 24. The Court also observes that the representatives forwarded with their final written arguments, vouchers for expenses related to the litigation of this case. In this regard, it will only consider those expenses that relate to requests for costs and expenses incurred following the presentation of the pleadings and motions brief. 2. Admission of the statements of the presumed victims and of the testimonial evidence 25. Regarding the statements of the presumed victims and of the witness provided by affidavit and during the hearing, the Court finds them pertinent only to the extent that they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order requiring them (supra para. 8). Moreover, according to this Court’s case law, the statements made by the presumed victims cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather together with all the evidence in the proceedings, since they are useful insofar as they can provide further information on the alleged violations and their consequences. 25 V PRIOR CONSIDERATION REGARDING THE PRESUMED VICTIMS 26. The Court will now assess the following requests made by the representatives: (a) to increase the number of surviving presumed victims; (b) to increase the number of next of kin of the deceased presumed victims, and (c) to include next of kin of the surviving victims as presumed victims, in order to establish in advance who will be considered presumed victims in this case. The Court notes that both the Commission and the representatives used different names or pseudonyms interchangeably to refer to the presumed victims in this case. Consequently, Annex A to this Judgment contains the names used by the Court in the Judgment, as well as the other names or pseudonyms that may have been used in the documents provided by the parties. A. Arguments 27. In its Merits Report, the Commission individualized as presumed victims seven deceased persons,26 13 survivors,27 and 51 next of kin of those deceased. Furthermore, the 24 Unless covered by the exceptions under Article 43 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 25 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 43. 26 “Jacqueline Maxime, Fritz Alce (Gemilord), Roselene Theremeus, Ilfaudia Dorzema, Máximo Rubén de Jesús Espinal, Pardis Fortilus and Nadege Dorzema” (merits file, tome I, folio 34). 27 “Joseph Pierre, Selafoi Pierre, Silvie Therméus, Roland Israel, Rose Marie Dol, Josué Maxime, Michel Florantin, Cecilia Petithome/Estilien, Sonide Nora, Alphonse Oremis, Renaud Timat, Honorio Winique and Joseph 10