12 immediately accessible by the Court, by the other party, or the Commission.27 In this case, there was no objection or observations by the parties or the Commission regarding the admissibility of these documents. 30. Similarly, the Court considers it appropriate to admit the statements given at the public hearing and before a notary public (supra para. 8), since they adjust to the object defined by the President in the Order that indicated they be received 28 and to the object of this case. 31. In what refers to the documents delivered during the public hearing by the person offering his statement with informative purposes, Oscar Orlando Bonilla Landa, the Court takes note that said documents were forwarded to the parties and the Commission. The Court admits said documents as part of his statement, given they consider them useful for the resolution of this case. 32. Regarding the annexes to the final written arguments presented by the representatives on June 20, 2014, this Court verifies that they refer to supervening information that can also be useful for the resolution of the case, reason for which it admits said documentary evidence, with the exception of the following documents, which do not have that nature and with regard to which the representatives did not justify that due to force majeure or serious hindrance they did not present that evidence at the correct procedural moment: i) a blueprint of the property belonging to Mr. V. H. of February, 2013, ii) an authorization from the Environmental Municipal Unit of the Municipality of Tela of October 19, 2012, iii) a statement offered by Mr. V. H. on December 27, 2012, and iv) a public notice from the Committee for the Defense of Triunfeña Lands of September 20, 2004. 33. On the other hand, on June 23, 2014, the Commission presented an “extension of the expert statement offered by José Aylwin,” which had been given at the public hearing. Through a note of the Secretariat of July 18, 2014 said brief was forwarded to the parties and they were given until August 1, 2014 to present the observations considered relevant. The State requested an extension, which was granted, and forwarded said observations on August 11, 2014 and did not object the admissibility of the mentioned brief. The representatives did not present observations. The Court considers that the mentioned extension can be useful for the resolution of this case, and therefore admits the brief presented by the Commission as part of the statement offered by the expert witness José Aylwin. 34. Additionally, on January 9, 2015, the State presented a brief about an “interview held by a Television company that operates in the city of Tela […], to Mrs. Clara Flores Sánchez, in the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, in her position of President of the Board of said community.” In this sense, on January 13, 2014 the State presented a DVD with a recording of the mentioned interview and on the 20 th of that same month and year it forwarded a brief to which it attached a “certificate” signed by the “[p]resenter of Panorama Morning News”, indicating that said interview had been carried out on November 15, 2014. Through a note from the Secretariat dated January 21, 2015 it gave the representatives and the Commission time until February 2, 2015 so the representatives and Commission could present their observations. The representatives and the Commission forwarded those observations on that same date. This Court verified that this is supervening information, and it admits the mentioned evidence presented by the State. 35. With regard to the documents collected during the visit in situ on August 21 and 22, 2015, these were transmitted through a note of the Secretariat of September 3, 2015, and the State, the representatives, and the Commission were given until September 11, 2015 to Cfr. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 26, and Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, para. 75. 27 28 The objects of the statements are defined in the Order of the President of the Court of March 26, 2014.