62. Similarly, the State objected to the Organizational and Operating Rules of the Office of the Human Rights Prosecutor, approved in an Agreement of the Council of the Public Prosecution Service 3-2005, arguing that this does not constitute “evidence relevant to this case, […] because it does not indicate what [the representatives] are trying to prove with these.” Furthermore, the State challenged the submission of a number of documents arguing that these “are not official” and are not signed. 60 In addition, it asked the Court not to give evidentiary value to two documents prepared by the organization UDEFEGUA, or by the representative in this case, Claudia Samayoa, “as Coordinator of UDEFEGUA,” 61 since these could contain biased information. 63. Next, the State challenged “the written testimonies” and “DVD [statements]” of various individuals offered by the representatives, some of which also were presented by the Commission (supra para. 60), arguing that these were not rendered before a notary public and there is no record indicating who received them. Finally, Guatemala requested that the Court declare inadmissible the “expert opinion on the investigation file” prepared by Messrs. F.S. and Q.M., since these individuals were not “qualified for that purpose.” Similarly, it noted that those “expert opinions” were not rendered before a notary public. 64. First, with respect to the State’s objections that some of the documents presented as evidence by the Commission and the representatives were incomplete or illegible, or were not submitted until after the Secretariat had requested clarification (supra paras. 60 and 61), the Court recalls that, under Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure, any item of evidence submitted to it by the Commission or one of the parties must be complete and intelligible. Otherwise, the Court will grant the Commission or the party in question a deadline within which to correct the defects or submit relevant clarifications. Furthermore, Article 58 of the Rules empowers the Court to request the parties and the Commission to submit any evidence that it considers may be useful for the settlement of the case. Accordingly, the Court confirms that in their briefs of September 26, 2012, and February 28, 2013, the Commission and the representatives presented, respectively, the clarifications and documents requested through the notes of the Secretariat of September 19, 2012, and 18 February 2013. Consequently, the objections raised by the State are invalid, and the documents referred to will be assessed within the context of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. Similarly, the Court considers unfounded the State’s argument that the documents containing the representatives’ clarifications should be rejected because the brief arrived without its cover page. The Court notes that those documents were received within the deadline established for that purpose and, although the brief with which they were submitted was received without its cover page, this is not sufficient reason to affect the admissibility of the evidence offered. 65. Secondly, with respect to the written testimonies or those recorded on DVD, presented by the Commission and the representatives, which were not rendered before a notary public (supra paras. 60 and 61), as well as the “psychosocial expert report” of the psychologist H.M. (supra para. 60) and the “expert report on the investigation” prepared by Mr. F.S. and Mrs. Q.M. (supra para. 63), which were not rendered before a notary public either, the Court emphasizes that these will only have the character of documentary evidence. 62 As to the DVD disk identified as “Interviews [M.I.] 2009”, the Court finds that this forms part of the case file before the Commission, which was submitted to the Court and included in the file in accordance with Article 35(d) of the Rules. Therefore, this evidence will be assessed within the context of the existing body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. Nevertheless, the Court notes that the 60 For those reasons, the State objected to the following documents: Programme of Measures for Prevention and Protection of Human Rights Defenders and other Vulnerable Groups, Final Agreed Version of 2009; Proposal for a Framework Agreement for the Implementation of Precautionary Measures and Provisional Measures ordered by the Organs of the Inter-American System; National Measures of Protection presented on November 4, 2009 by CALDH, ICCPG, UDEFEGUA and CEJIL, and Risk Analysis prepared by the URNG (Merits file , pages 363 and 365). 61 The State referred to a document entitled “Evaluation conducted by CALDJ, ICCPG, UDEFEGUA and CEJIL on the status of the implementation of Precautionary and Protection Measures at national level in June 2009”, and to another entitled “Risk Analysis prepared by the URNG, and Claudia Virginia Samayoa in her role as Coordinator of UDEFEGUA, in September 2006, concerning the acts of violence that occurred between 2004 and 2006.” Regarding this last document, the State argued that it is not appropriate for illustrating the context in which the facts of this case occurred. 62 Cf. Order of the President of the Court of December 20, 2013, supra, para. 8. Similarly, see, Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011. Series C No. 223, para. 39, and Case of J. V. Peru, supra, para. 46. 19