that, in annexes 1, 3, 4, 5,34 635 and 7,36 the “State seeks to introduce evidence that is not supervening outside the proper procedural occasion.” They also indicated that annexes 237 and 4, “are unrelated to the arguments made by the IACHR or the victims’ representatives.” Regarding the documents presented by the State together with its final arguments, the Court notes that they respond to the request made by the Court during the public hearing under Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure, and therefore considers it appropriate to admit them. 36. The State indicated that most of the expenses included by the representatives “were inadmissible owing to late submission of the documentary support.” 37. The Court notes that the representatives presented vouchers for costs and expenses incurred prior to the presentation of the pleadings and motions brief with their final written arguments. The Court considers that, pursuant to Article 40(b) of the Rules of Procedure, this offer of evidence is time-barred and, consequently, when calculating the costs and expenses, it will not take it into consideration any voucher dated prior to the presentation of the pleadings and motions brief on December 11, 2018. 38. Lastly, the State contested the admissibility of the facts and evidence presented by the representatives on May 24, 2019, on the current situation of the presumed victim. The Court notes that these facts do not form part of the purpose of the case and are, therefore, not admissible. B. Admissibility of the testimonial and expert evidence 39. The Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements made by affidavit 38 and at the public hearing,39 insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them and the purpose of this case. 40. The representatives argued that the questions sent to the deponents offered by the State were disregarded or unanswered. They indicated that: (i) expert witness Víctor Manuel Cubas Villanueva failed to address the only question posed to him; (ii) while expert witness Moisés Valdemar Ponce Malaver did address the questions posed, he indicated that he did not have the information requested even though, in his expert opinion, he referred to the training courses that he was asked about, and (iii) expert witness Luís Alberto Naldos Blanco indicated that the question fell outside the purpose of his expert opinion, even though it was within this purpose and the expert witness referred to this aspect in the text of his expert opinion; also Annex 5 corresponds to the document entitled “Legislative Decree No.1267, published in the official gazette El Peruano on December 16, 2016, adopting the Law of the Peruvian National Police.” 34 Annex 6 corresponds to the document entitled “Decision of the Executive Directorate No.017-2016-MIMPPNCVFS-DE, of March 31, 2016, adopting the “Guidelines for the care of LGTBI persons in the services of the PNCVFS of the MIMP,” 35 Annex 7 corresponds to the document entitled “Ministerial Decision No.157-2016-MIMP, of July 22, 2016, adopting the “Manual on comprehensive care of the women’s emergency centers.” 36 Annex 2 corresponds to the document entitled “Report of planned academic activities for 2019 by the Academy of the Judiciary on “issues of gender, violence and people trafficking.” 37 Cf. Affidavit of Juan Ernesto Méndez of August 1, 2019 (evidence file, folios 3395 to 3414); affidavit of Nora Sveaass of August 5, 2019 (evidence file, folios 3414 to 3429); affidavit of Roger Mauricio Noguera Rojas of August 12, 2019 (evidence file, folios 3431 to 3446); affidavit of Moisés Valdemar Ponce Malaver of August 12, 2019 (evidence file, folios 3448 to 3462); affidavit of Luis Alberto Naldos Blanco of August 9, 2019 (evidence file, folios 3463 to 3481); affidavit of Victor Manuel Cubas Villanueva of August 12, 2019 (evidence file, folios 3482 to 3519), and affidavit of Nancy Rosalina Tolentino Gamarra of August 12, 2019 (evidence file, folios 3543 to 3571). 38 Cf. Statement made by Víctor Manuel Álvarez at the public hearing held in this case; statement made by Ketty Garibay Mascco at the public hearing held in this case, and statement made by María Mercedes Gómez at the public hearing held in this case. 39 12