orders requiring them in this case. 27 Furthermore, the Court accepts the documentation presented by the representatives as proof of expenses and utilization of the Court's Victims’ Fund in litigating this case before this Court (infra paras. 188–190). 28 34. In addition, the Court observes that the parties submitted, along with their final written arguments, a set of documents related to the subject matter and dispute of the case. Their admissibility was not contested by the representatives or by the Commission. The State contested the admissibility of documentary annexes 2–5 to the representatives’ final written arguments, arguing that they were not submitted in a timely manner. The Court does admit those documents, as they are of use in confirming the criminal record of Mr. Cortez, a matter about which the Court requested information at the public hearing and about which the State also submitted information. The Court thus admits all the documents submitted by the parties along with their final written arguments, in accordance with Article 58(a) of the Rules of Procedure, considering them relevant and useful for resolving the case. 29 VII FACTS 35. The Court will detail in this chapter the facts established in this case, on the basis of the factual framework and the body of admitted evidence, 30 in the following order: (a) relevant domestic legal framework; (b) facts preceding the first detention of Mr. Cortez; (c) facts related to the first detention of Mr. Cortez; (d) facts related to the second detention of Mr. Cortez and the progress and resolution of the military criminal trial; and (e) facts related to the third detention of Mr. Cortez and actions within ordinary courts. A. Relevant domestic legal framework 31 36. Aspects of the legal order that are relevant to the circumstances of the case are discussed here. It should be clarified that the codes of military and criminal procedure noted below (infra paras. 39–41) ceased to have effect after the events of the case (infra para. 176 and footnote 151). Furthermore, as this Court has previously noted, 32 it is widely known that Ecuador adopted a new constitution in 2008. 37. The constitutional text in effect in 1997 stated in Article 19(17)(h) that: “[n]o one shall be deprived of their liberty except by written order of a competent authority for the crimes, for the time periods, and under the terms prescribed by law, except in cases of crimes discovered while in progress, in which case the suspect still cannot be detained for more than to be included as an alleged victim, which is why she was called to make a victim statement. That order also indicated that said inclusion did not constitute a prejudgment regarding any determinations the Court might later make. As this judgment indicates, (supra para. 32), Ms. Cortez is not considered an alleged victim in the case. 27 The purposes of the statements are set forth in the February 14, 2022, Order of the President of the Court (supra para. 9). 28 The representatives submitted support documentation for expenses for affidavit preparation and bank fees. 29 The documents are the following: (a) annexes to the representatives’ final written arguments: (i) Record No. 993 – 2010 JTPP, issued on December 23, 2010, by the Third Judge of Criminal Guarantees of Pichincha (Annex 1), (ii) records from the Automated System of Judicial Proceedings of Ecuador (SATJE) concerning trials 17121-20100920 (Annex 2), 17253-2000-0046 (Annex 3), and 17245-2010-0103 (Annexes 4 and 5); and (b) Annexes 1, 2, and 3 to the State’s final written arguments: (i) Ministry of Government of Ecuador. Certificate of Criminal Record of Gonzalo Orlando Cortez Espinoza dated April 14, 2022, (ii) Criminal Code of Ecuador. Official Registry Supplement 147 of January 22, 1971, and (iii) Record No. 993-2010-JTPP issued on December 23, 2010, by the Third Judge of Criminal Guarantees of Pichincha. 30 To clarify, in cases in which a description of the facts does not refer to any evidence, those facts will be considered established if the parties have not disputed them. 31 Constitutional and legal texts cited in this section are public facts. 32 Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Resolution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 29, 2009, considering paragraph 30. 11