V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of documentary evidence 31. The Court received several documents submitted as evidence by the Commission, the representatives and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 5 to 7). As is its practice, the Court admits documents duly presented on time (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure) 15 by the parties and the Commission at the proper procedural moment, whose admissibility was neither contested nor opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned. 16 32. The Court also notes that the representatives submitted three annexes 17 together with their final written arguments. Both the State and the Commission replied that they had no comments concerning these documents. The Court therefore admits the annexes, considering that they address documents submitted as confirmation of expenditures incurred by the representatives to litigate the instant case. 33. Finally, the Court had asked the State, in a note from the Registrar on August 10, 2022, to submit the “official record of the arrest of Marco Tulio Regalado, setting forth the date he was detained, the name of the facility where he was held, and the date he entered that facility.” The State submitted the documentation as requested on August 12, 2022. This evidence was deemed admissible under the terms of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. B. Admissibility of evidence by witnesses and expert witnesses 34. This Court holds admissible the statements rendered before a public attestor 18 and in the public hearing, 19 as they are relevant to the topics set in the President’s order for submission and with the cause of this action. 20 VI FACTS 35. The Court, noting the broad scope of the State’s recognition of responsibility, will now discuss the facts of the case, based on the corpus of facts established in the Commission’s Report on the Merits, additional facts brought by the representatives in their pleadings and Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure stipulates in general terms that documentary evidence should be submitted together with the briefs of submission of the case, the pleadings brief or the answering brief, whichever applies. Evidence submitted outside the procedural time limits is not admissible, except as provided in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (cases of force majeure or serious impediment) or in the case of a supervening event that occurred subsequent to the expiration of the time limit. 16 Cf. Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure; also Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 24. 17 These documents are: invoices and expenditures incurred by COFADEH (annex 1); invoices and expenditures incurred by the Deras García family (annex 2), and invoices and expenditures incurred by FIDH (annex 3). 18 Statements rendered before a public attestor (affidavits) were received from Alba Luz Deras García, Herminio Deras Flores, Fabián Omar Salvioli, José Eugenio Sosa Iglesias, Carmen Lastenia Martínez García and Manuel Ollé Sesé, at the request of the representatives, and from Luz Adriana Camargo Garzón, proposed by the Commission. 19 Statements were taken from Otilia Flores Ortiz, Irma Isabel Deras García and Luis Rolando Deras García, proposed by the representatives. 20 The matters to be addressed in the statements are set out in the Court President’s order of March 31, 2022. 15