new strategies or, as in this case, new amounts of compensation allegedly due to Mr. Nissen Pessolani as reparation for pecuniary damages." The State did not expressly refer to the admissibility of Annex 2 submitted by the representative. The Commission indicated that it had no comments on the aforementioned annexes. 17. The Court recalls that, in accordance with Article 57(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the procedural moment to present documentary evidence is generally alongside the pleadings, requests and arguments or response, as appropriate. In the instant case, the information presented by the representative in their annexes refers to facts or situations prior to the presentation of the brief with pleadings and arguments. This makes said documents extemporaneous and, therefore, inadmissible, in following with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 18. Furthermore, the State, together with its closing arguments, submitted an annex containing a copy of the file "Atty. Alejandro Nissen, Capital Criminal Prosecutor s/ impeachment" before the Jury for the Impeachment of Magistrates. The alleged victim's representatives did not submit any observations on this document. Regarding this point, the Court emphasizes that this annex was submitted in response to an express request made by this Court during the public hearing, and is therefore admissible in accordance with the provisions of Article 58(b) of its Rules of Procedure. B. Admission of testimonial and expert evidence. 19. During the public hearing, the testimonies of Margarita Ostertag Nissen, Luis Bareiro, and Luis Talavera Alegre were received, as well as the expert opinion of Osvaldo Alfredo Gozaíni. Likewise, affidavits were received from seven witnesses8 and an expert witness.9 20. In its written closing arguments, the State referred to the testimony of Margarita Ostertag, claiming that she was questioned on issues that she could only have had tangential knowledge, and that should have been clarified by the alleged victim. In this vein, the State claimed that a "strange procedural strategy" had been applied, impeding it from interrogating the alleged victim. In fact, it said that Mr. Nissen Pessolani abstained from testifying in his capacity as the alleged victim; nevertheless, he responded to the questions asked by the judges at the end of the hearing. Turning to the witness Luis Talavera, the State claimed that he met with the representative during the break in the hearing, before testifying. Regarding the witnesses who testified by affidavit, the State alleged that "they were surprising given their minimal connection with the facts that gave rise to this case: one of them stated that he had not interviewed or spoken with Mr. Nissen Pessolani; another one is his colleague and friend, so the only thing he contributed was basic information about himself. Finally, a third witness only provided general opinions on what he remembers about the case that is publicly known information." 21. Regarding the testimony of witness Margarita Ostertag and the fact that no testimony was provided by the alleged victim, this Court recalls that it is up to each 8 The written statements of Guillermo Domaniczky, Augusto Barreto, José Casañas Levi, and Ricardo Lataza, offered by the representative, were received. The written testimonies of Oscar Germán Latorre Cañete, Matilde Elena Moreno Irigotia, and Enrique Antonio Fortunato Sosa Elizeche, offered by the State, were also received. 9 The expert opinion of Carlos Ayala Corao, offered by the Commission, was received. 6