automatically in all cases where there is no opposition from a party in that regard, and without an assessment of the specific circumstances of the case and of the existing body of evidence. The silence of the defendant or its obscure or ambiguous answer can be interpreted as an acknowledgment of the facts of the Merits Report, while the contrary is not revealed by the proceedings or as a result of judicial conviction.22 However, the Court may allow the parties to participate in certain procedural actions, taking into account the stages that have expired owing to the opportune procedural moment. 20. Thus, the State has had the procedural opportunity to participate in the public hearing by questioning the deponents, and was able to respond to the questions posed by the judges of the Court and to present its final oral and written arguments. Accordingly, the Court considers that, in view of the absence of an answer to the submission, it will not assess any State arguments or evidence that contests the facts of the case, their admissibility, and the accreditation of presumed victims, because they were not submitted at the appropriate procedural moment (Article 41(1) of the Rules of Procedure). Thus, the Court will only assess disputes regarding statements provided by affidavit and during the public hearing, the legal arguments presented during the hearing, and the final written arguments related to arguments made during the hearing, together with answers and evidence strictly related to the questions posed by the judges during the hearing. 21. Moreover, the State asked that the final written arguments presented by the representatives on July 24, 2012, be declared inadmissible because they were time-barred, since the non-extendible period expired on July 23, 2012. In this regard, the Court observes that, according to the record of the Internet server of the Secretariat of the Court, the reception of the electronic message from the representatives announcing the submission of the final written arguments and included the list of annexes began at 11.35 p.m. on July 23, 2012. Subsequently, another 30 annexes were received between that time and 2.16 a.m. on July 24, 2012. The brief with final arguments was received electronically at 00.24 a.m. the same day. In this regard, the Court considers that, since this is an international proceedings, and required the transmission of a considerable volume of information by electronic means, in accordance with Articles 28 and 33 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure which permit documents to be submitted by this means, and since the Court began to receive the documents within the allotted time frame and the transmission continued without interruption until 2.16 a.m., on this occasion, it will admit the brief with final arguments of the representatives and the annexes, considering that they were received within the time frame established in Article 28 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.23 22. Regarding the requests of the representatives and the State concerning the inadmissibility of additional arguments and evidence included in the final written arguments of the other party, the Court recalls that the final arguments are essentially an opportunity to systematize the factual and legal arguments presented opportunely and not an occasion to present new facts and/or additional legal arguments because they cannot be answered by the other parties. Consequently, the Court finds that it will only consider in its decision the final written arguments that are strictly related to evidence and legal arguments already provided at the appropriate procedural opportunity (supra para. 18), or helpful evidence requested by a judge or the Court and, as appropriate, the circumstances set forth in Article 57 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, which, if this is necessary, will be indicated in the relevant section 22 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, para. 138 and Case of González Medina v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 73. 23 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 37 and 39; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 117; Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 12; Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009, Series C No. 197, para. 13, and Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 20, 2006, tenth considering paragraph. 9