No. 327-13 of November 29, 2013, and Law No. 169-14 of May 23, 2014, and asked that they be incorporated into the case file because it considered that they were supervening facts. 14. Amici curiae. The Court received amici curiae briefs from various institutions: (1) the Human Rights Clinic of the University of Texas School of Law; (2) the Public Actions Group (GAP), the Jurisprudence Faculty of the Universidad del Rosario, Colombia, and the Pro Bono Foundation, Colombia; (3) the RFK International Strategic Litigation Unit; (4) the Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS) Argentina, the Iniciativa Frontera Norte de Mexico (IFNM) and the Fundar Centro de Análisis e Investigación, Mexico; (5) the Human Rights Clinic of Santa Clara University Law School; (6) the Latin American Council of Students of International and Comparative Law, Dominican Republic Chapter (hereinafter “COLADIC-RD”); (7) the International Human Rights Law Clinic of the University of Virginia School of Law; (8) the International Human Rights Clinic of the Inter-American University of Puerto Rico Law School and the Caribbean Institute for Human Rights; (9) the Human Rights Clinic of the University of Miami School of Law, and (10) the Pedro Francisco Bonó Center, the Centro de Formación y Acción Social Agraria (CEFASA), Solidaridad Fronteriza, the Jesuit Migration Service Network, Dominican Republic, and the National Director of the Social Sector of the Company of Jesus in the Dominican Republic, Mario Serrano Marte. In addition Paola Pelletier Quiñones presented an amicus curie. 15. Regarding the amici curiae presented by the Human Rights Clinic of the University of Virginia, and by the International Human Rights Clinic and Law School of the InterAmerican University of Puerto Rico and the Caribbean Human Rights Institute, the State asked that both amici curiae be declared inadmissible and excluded from the deliberations on the case, asserting that it had been proved that the content of the former had been guided, coordinated and revised by CEJIL, which was a party to this international litigation and, with regard to the latter, that Mrs. Martínez-Orabona, was not someone who was “unrelated to the proceedings,” so that the brief did not qualify as an amici curiae, under Article 2(3) of the Rules of Procedure. The Court points out that, under Article 2(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the person presenting an amicus should be a person or institution that is unrelated to the litigation and proceedings before the Court, who submits arguments on the facts contained in the submission of the case, or legal considerations on the subjectmatter of the proceedings. In other words, the person should not be a procedural party to the litigation, and the document is presented in order to clarify to the Court some factual or legal matters related to the case being processed by the Court; therefore, it cannot be understood as a motion or pleading that the Court must assess in order to decide the case, and an amicus curiae brief may never be assessed as an actual probative element. 17 Hence, the State’s request that they be excluded from the deliberations is inadmissible. Consequently, the Court admits the said amici curiae, in keeping with the preceding considerations. 16. Regarding the amici curiae presented by COLADIC-RD and by the Bonó Center and their attachments, the State argued that “the rules of procedure do not establish that those who participate in the proceedings as amici curiae may submit documents of any kind, rather they must present legal arguments.” The Court underlines that Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure which refers to submission of amici curiae, establishes that “[a]ny person or institution seeking to act as amicus curiae may submit a brief to the Court, together with its annexes, by any of the means established in Article 28(1) of the […] Rules of Procedure.” Consequently, the Court considers that the State’s observations are inadmissible, and admits the said documents. 17 Cf. Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, para. 10. 10