20. Moreover, in accordance with the Order of the President of the Court of April 16, 2021 (supra para. 8), the judicial files provided by the State at the Court’s request have been incorporated into the body of evidence. 11 21. The State, on December 24, 2020, May 14 and July 16, 2021, presented documentation on “new facts,” which occurred after the submission of the respondent’s answer. The representative and the Commission did not question the admissibility of that documentation.12 22. The Court considers that the documentation submitted by the State deals with supervening events or with information that might be useful in deciding the case. It should be clearly noted that, while all the documents presented by the State to show “new facts” were put together after the submission of its answering brief, some contained information on events that were not dated and that could have occurred prior to the submission of the answer. Nonetheless, those documents refer to judicial cases that are important to this case and are thus useful. 23. Some of the documents presented by the State do not refer to events directly linked to the alleged victims nor to judicial proceedings involved in this case. According to the list in footnote 12, they are as follows: document (b), the purpose of which is to account for the manner in which the Uruguayan courts interpret the application of criminal statutory limitations (hereinafter also “prescription”) with respect to certain crimes, as well as how they categorize crimes against humanity; documents (c) and (f), which Uruguay claimed were pertinent to prove the State’s commitment to seeking the majeure or serious impediment) or in the case of a supervening event, that is, occurring after those procedural moments. Pursuant to the Order of April 16, 2021, they consist of the following judicial criminal files: (i) Raggio, Reyes Maidanik. Twenty-sixth Criminal Court. IUE 91-841-1986, (ii) Twenty-seventh Criminal Court. Principal Case: IUE 97-10149/1985. Piece 1: 97-324/2017. Piece 2: 547-396/2018, (iii) Twenty-sixth Criminal Court. IUE 100-152/2012 and (iv) File of the investigation into the death of Washington Barrios. Nineteenth Criminal Court (hereinafter “files presented by the State”). These files were requested of Uruguay at the urging of the representative. The Court observes that, on September 19, 2020, the representative presented as a new fact the statement of a Senator of the Republic GMR, related to “restoring the Ley de Caducidad” (Law of Expiry). The representative claimed that these statements are significant in the “current context of human rights in Uruguay.” In the Order of April 16, 2021, the President “did not note that, as evidence relevant to the facts of the case, it was necessary that Uruguay provide for these proceedings documentation on the draft law and the statements made by a Senator.” 11 Neither the representative nor the Commission presented observations on the documents presented by the State on December 24, 2020 and May 14, 2021. The Commission informed that it did not have any observations with respect to the documents presented on July 16, 2021. The representative, in referring to those documents, commented on their probative value, but not on their admissibility. It also offered its opinion on the responsibility of the State, which was not taken into consideration because it was given during a procedural act, which was not an appropriate moment to receive arguments. The documentation presented by the State on December 24, 2020 is indicated below as documents (a) and (b); that presented on May 14, 2021, as document (c). The other documents were presented on July 16, 2021. The documentation is as follows: (a) the “presentation of imprisonment pending trial” of December 17 [2020], for the homicides of Ms. Reyes, Ms. Raggio and Ms. Maidanik; (b) the “order of imprisonment pending trial” of December 14, 2020; (c) the documents on the delivery by the Executive Branch to the Court Prosecutor and to the National Institute of Human Rights of the documentation found in the Fifth Army Artillery Group; (d) the “note of the Supreme Court of July 7, 2021 and its annexes on current activities”; (e) Decision 539/2021 of June 3, 2021; (f) the Report of the Embassy of Uruguay in Italy on the judgment of July 8, 2021 of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation regarding the proceedings of the so-called “Operation Condor,” and (g) the “Third report on the search for the disappeared detainees,” of June 24, 2021. 12 9