EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of documentary evidence 43. The Court received numerous documents presented as evidence by the Commission and the parties together with their main briefs (supra paras. 4, 8, and 9). As in other cases, the documents that were submitted by the parties and the Commission in a timely manner and whose admissibility was not disputed or objected, nor whose authenticity was questioned are admitted (Article 57 of the Regulations).24 25 44. Meanwhile, the State submitted numerous documents in response to the requests made based on Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure (supra para 12), which are admitted.26 Likewise, when presenting its final arguments, on March 11, 2022, the State submitted another document that includes information on health care provided to three of the alleged victims on dates subsequent to submitting the answering brief.27 On this account, the document submitted is admitted in that specifically relating to the facts arising after said procedural stage and information that responds to the specific requirements formulated by the Court. B. Admissibility of testimonial and expert evidence 45. The Court considers it appropriate to admit the statements made before a notary public 28 and in a public hearing29 to the extent that they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the Court President in the document ordering them to be received, in following with the purpose of this case.30 VII FACTS 46. The facts of this case will be determined by the Court based on the factual framework presented by the Commission, the arguments of the parties, and the evidence provided. Therefore, for better understanding, the facts will be established in the following order: a) the Casierra Quiñonez brothers and their family; b) the order of December 7, 1999, issued by the Port of Esmeraldas Harbormaster; c) the events that occurred on December 8, 1999; d) the subsequent events and the investigation of what happened; e) the criminal proceedings instituted before the military jurisdiction and before the ordinary jurisdiction, and f) the inclusion of the “Case of Casierra” in the Truth Commission's report. In accordance with article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, documentary evidence in general may be presented together with the briefs, requests, and arguments or answers the case, as appropriate, and evidence submitted outside of these procedural opportunities is not admissible except in the exceptions set out in said article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (namely, force majeure, serious impediment) or except in the case of a supervening event, meaning one that occurred after the aforementioned procedural moments. 25 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 01, 2021. Series C No. 434, para. 33, and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2021. Series C No. 446, para. 31. 26 Annexes submitted by the State in a brief dated March 11, 2022 (evidence file, volume XIII, folios 5328 to 11269). 27 This is a report on the health care provided to Andrés Alejandro Casierra Quiñonez, Sebastián Darlin Casierra Quiñonez, and María Ingracia Quiñonez Bone, “in the establishments of the public health network m of District 08D03 MAS from 2016 to the present date,” signed by authorities of the respective Health District on February 25, 2022 (evidence file, volume XIII, folios 11097 to 11100). 28 The Court received the testimony given before notary public by Sebastián Darlin Casierra Quiñonez, Jonny Jacinto Casierra Quiñonez, Shirley Lourdes Quiñonez Bone, Jorge Olgin Ortiz Bone, and Freddy Eloy Zambrano Quiñonez (evidence file, volume XII, affidavits, folios 5278 to 5327). Likewise, it received the expert opinion rendered before notary public Rodrigo Bustos Bottai (evidence file, volume XI, affidavits, folios 5247 to 5275). 29 In a public hearing, the Court heard the testimony of Andrés Alejandro Casierra Quiñonez. 30 The subject matter of said testimony is set out in the Order of the Court’s President of December 8, 2021. 24 12