annexes presented in their final written arguments. On July 2, 2021, the Commission stated that it had no observations on the annexes to the final written arguments submitted by the parties. 12. Deliberation of the instant case. The Court began deliberation of this judgment on February 1, 2022. III. JURISDICTION 13. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, since Chile has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 21, 1990, and accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on the same date. IV. EVIDENCE 14. The Court admits those documents that were presented at the appropriate procedural moment by the parties and the Commission (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure), and whose admissibility was neither contested nor challenged, nor their authenticity questioned. 42 The Court also finds it pertinent to admit the statements rendered at the public hearing 43 and by affidavit, 44 insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President and the Court in the orders that required them. 45 Furthermore, the Court accepts the documentation submitted by the representatives together with their final written arguments and the supporting documents related to the litigation of this case before the Court, insofar as they refer to costs and expenses. 46 At the same time, the Court notes that the State submitted, together with its final written arguments, a series of documents related to the subject matter and dispute in this case. 47 The Court admits said documents in application of Article 58(a) of the Rules of Procedure, considering them relevant and useful for the settlement of this case, and also noting that their admissibility was not challenged by the representatives or by the Commission. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of the Julien Grisonas Family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 23, 2021. Series C No. 437, para. 48. 42 43 The Court received statements from the following persons: Sandra Pavez Pavez, Rodrigo Uprimny Yepes, José Luis Lara Arroyo, and Estefanía Esparza Reyes. The Court received statements rendered by affidavit from the following persons: Paolo Carozza, Cynthia Verónica Ormazabal Pávez, Aída del Carmen Pavez Pavez, Ximena de los Ángeles Messina Bravo, Berta Leticia Fernández Pizarro, and Gerhard Robbers. 44 The purposes of the statements are established in the Order of the President of the Court of March 3, 2021, and in the Order of the Court of March 26, 2021. 45 46 They submitted a receipt for payment of a hotel room during the public hearing in this case (evidence file folios 2460 and 2461). 47 These include the following documents: 1) Employment contract signed on March 12, 1991 between the teacher Sandra Pavez Pavez and the Municipal Education Corporation of San Bernardo; 2) Public statement of Mayor Orfelina Bustos, of December 24, 2007, concerning the meeting held with the teacher Sandra Pavez Pavez; 3) Letter from the Vicar for Education of the Diocese of San Bernardo to the Health and Education Corporation of San Bernardo, of July 23, 2007; 4) Decree-Law No. 5291 of 1929; 5) Law N° 6.477 of 1939; 6) Supreme Decree N. 776, regulating religious education in schools; 7) Law 19.638 of 1999; 8) Labor Code of Chile; 9) General Law of Education, enacted as Law No. 20.370, in its consolidated and systematized text under Decree-Law No. 2, of 2010, of the Ministry of Education; 10) Teachers' Statute, enacted as Law. N. 19,070, and now in its consolidated and systematized text under Decree-Law No. 1, of 1997, of the Ministry of Education; 11) Law No. 20.501, of 2011; 12) Opinion 66666/2013 of the Comptroller General of the Republic; 13) Opinion 13202/2005 of the Comptroller General of the Republic, and 14) Appeal filed by the representatives of Sandra Pavez Pavez before the Court of Appeals of San Miguel. 7