9 the State orally restated some of the arguments included in the observations, the Court observes that the mentioned documents had already been presented at a prior time and their presentation was considered time-barred.14 Despite the aforementioned, the documents were transmitted to the parties and were not objected by any of them. 27. On the other hand, the Court during the public hearing asked that the State and the representatives to forward, if considered appropriate, of regulations related to municipal, general, or regulatory ordinances related to the situation of the expropriated property. On January 13, 2010, three months after the hearing was held, the State presented a brief titled “observations of the State to some concerns presented at the hearing on reparations and costs” in the present case, which included several arguments (supra para.11). On January 28th and February 12, 2010 in their forwarded observations, the representatives and the Commission, respectively, stated that said brief was not appropriate with regard to the state of the reparations proceedings, since the procedural stage to present arguments had been closed, and they asked that the Court declare the brief inadmissible. In this sense, the representatives stated, inter alia, that the information presented by the State does not respond to an order of the Court in which additional information had been requested, and that in said communication, it seeks to respond to the victim’s claims in regard to reparations, included in its brief of April 13, 2009. On its part, the Commission stated the inadmissibility of the brief because the State filed it outside of all terms granted for this purpose; in the brief it goes into matters of the merits of the case, ignoring the Judgment issued by the Court on May 6, 2008, and in some aspects it tends to present arguments on reparations and on the appropriateness of the payment of interests on the amount due with regard to the expropriation. Said brief was transmitted to the parties, who have had the opportunity to exercise their right to defense and in this sense the representatives and the Commission filed the previously mentioned observations. Additionally, the Court points out that said brief contains information on matters regarding the legislation that regulates the situation of the expropriated property, as well as the collection of the taxes and fines on plots without constructions from Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga, which are of relevance for the resolution of the present case. 28. In consideration of the aforementioned, and of the sui generis proceeding of the reparations stage in the present case, the Court decides to admit the documents mentioned in the two previous paragraphs since it considers them appropriate and useful for the resolution of the present case, pursuant with Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure. In consideration of the representatives and the Commissions observations and the totality of the body of evidence the Court will evaluate the documentation, according to the rules of sound judgment. 29. In regard to the twenty-one annexes enclosed with the State’s brief of January 13, 2010, and to the annexes presented with the representatives’ observations on April 7, 2010, this Tribunal points out that several of the documents had already been presented in a timely manner15 by the parties, and they are admitted into the body of evidence of the present case. 14 On July 22nd and August 4, 2009, the State submitted its observations regarding the “expert witness report in reference to the valuation prepared by the architect Jakeline Jaramillo Barcia” and its observations regarding the arguments presented by the representatives of the victim on reparations. On August 6, 2009, the Secretariat informed the State that since the time limit conceded for the submission of its observations regarding reparations and evidence had expired on June 11, 2009, the mentioned writs presented on July 22nd and August 4, 2009 were untimely and could not be admitted. (Cf. Communication of the Secretariat of the Court on August 6, 2009, case file of Reparations and Costs, tome III, folios 490 and 496) Moreover, it informed the State that at the public hearing regarding Reparations and Costs to be held for this case, the State would have the opportunity to present its observations (Cf. Order of the President of the Court of August 6, 2009, case file of Reparations and Costs, tome III, folios 492 to 495). 15 Namely: 1) Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador of 1984, mentioned articles (case file of annexes to the brief of motions and pleadings, annexes 12 to 16, folios 2143 to 2444); 2) Organic Law of the Municipal Regimen No. 331 of October 15, 1971, mentioned articles (case file of annexes to the brief of motions and pleadings, annex 16, folios 2290 to 2677); 3) Code of Civil Procedure of 1987, mentioned articles (case file of evidence to better resolve presented by the State, folios 5125 to 5633); 4) Ordinance No. 2818, limits of the Metropolitan Park Bella Vista de Quito (case file of evidence to better resolve presented by the State -II envio-, folio 7530); 5) Ordinance No. 0181,