V. EVIDENCE A. Admission of the documentary evidence 25. The Court received documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representative and the State together with their principal briefs (supra paras. 1, 2, 4 and 5). In this case, as in others, the Court admits those documents presented at the appropriate moment by the parties and the Commission or requested as helpful evidence by its President,15 the admissibility of which was not contested or challenged. 16 Based on Article 58(a) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court has also incorporated the texts of three domestic laws because they are useful and are public documents.17 26. In addition, the representative submitted the documentation requested as helpful evidence belatedly owing to technical problems with his email when trying to send the documentation and annexes (supra para. 9), even though he tried to send it several times. The State asked the Court to consider those documents inadmissible owing to their late presentation. Nevertheless, the Court notes that the representative sent documentation related to the helpful evidence requested on two occasions; the first time it was received on June 30, 2021, so that most of the documentation forwarded by the representative was already included in the body of evidence in this case. Regarding the documentation submitted for the first time, this Court considers that it is useful for deciding the case and, therefore, on this occasion, based on Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure, it admits the documentation provided by the representative,18 and will take into account the State’s corresponding observations. Regarding the second batch of documents related to helpful evidence presented on July 2, 2021,19 the State reiterated its argument that these should not be admitted The laws presented by the State as helpful evidence included the following: (1) Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador; (2) 1983 common Code of Criminal Procedure, in force from January 1, 1998, to June 30, 2000; (3) 1960 Law on the Judicial Function of the National Police; (4) Organic Law of the National Police, and (5) Law on National Police Personnel, published in the Supplement to Official Record 378 of August 7, 1998. In addition, the State clarified that Audit Report No. 32-DA1-2001-466 formed part of Audit Report No. DA1-93-01 on the special review of the administrative and financial operations of the National Police General Command, for the period January 1, 1998, to June 30, 2000, forwarded as annex 1 to the answering brief. Lastly, the State referred to whether the presumed victims received any type of total or partial salary or remuneration during the police criminal proceedings conducted in 2003, 2004 and 2005. 15 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 12, 2020. Series C No. 402, para. 34. 16 The following are incorporated ex officio: Organic Law of the Judicial Function published in Official Record No. 636 of September 11, 1974; Law amending the common Code of Criminal Procedure, Law No. 2003-101, amending the common Code of Criminal Procedure and the 2000 common Code of Criminal Procedure, published in the Supplement to Official Record 360 of January 13, 2000. 17 The representative referred to whether the presumed victims received any type of total or partial salary or remuneration during the police criminal proceedings conducted in 2003, 2004 and 2005, and whether, following their acquittal, they were paid any proportional salaries and other benefits they had not received. In addition, based on the Court’s requests, he presented the following documents, inter alia: (a) Claim for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages filed before the National Police Court of Justice on March 24, 2005; (b) “Administrative complaint” against the State represented by the Constitutional President and his judicial representative, the Attorney General, undated; (c) Communication from the Office of the President of the Republic dated October 12, 2006; (d) Resolution of the Alternate President of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 8, 2007; (e) Resolution of the President of the Supreme Court of Justice of April 10, 2007; (f) Claim for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage against the Ecuadorian State represented by the Attorney General and the Police Institution represented by the Police Commander General, filed on July 21, 2008; (g) Judicial decision of the Twentieth Civil Court of Pichincha, Quito, of September 25, 2008; (h) Judicial decision of the Twentieth Civil Court of Pichincha, Quito of September 29, 2008; (i) Judicial decision of the District Court for Administrative Disputes of the Metropolitan District of Quito, province of Pichincha, of November 8, 2018; (j) Application for amparo filed by Mario Romel Cevallos Moreno before the National Court of Justice, undated, and (k) Brief relating to the prosecutor’s request for clarification and expansion of the application of November 27, 2003. 18 Namely: (1) Nine communications of the Supreme Court of Justice, Alternate President, in the summary oral proceedings (damages), dated February 5, 7 and 8; April 10, 19 and 22; June 29; July 24, and November 16, 2007; (2) Seven briefs of Jorge Villarroel Merino in the summary oral proceedings (damages) dated April 5, May 18, June 22, July 20 19 8