said judgment; they do not prove that this judgment did not have discriminatory bias and, in particular, do not show that [their clients] are not in real danger of being stripped of their nationality because they are of Haitian descent.” The Court considers that the representatives’ arguments concerning some of the documents relate to their content and not to their admissibility. Consequently, it admits those documents for which the State indicated a link to a website and which the representatives and the Commission have been able to access. 137. The representatives also referred to the “documentation [presented by the State] that sought to question the identity of Willian Medina Ferreras” and affirmed that it “supported what [they] had indicated in [their] final [written] arguments with regard to the reprisals taken […] against [Mr. Medina] owing to his participation in these proceedings.” They added that “the documents are merely newspaper articles that replicate the State’s position before the Court.” Lastly, they asked the Court to “take into account [their] observations when assessing the evidence proposed by the State.” The Court considers that the representatives’ observations do not compromise the admissibility of the documents, and determines that they are admissible. 138. With regard to the 40 case files relating to the deportation of individuals other than the presumed victims in this case, the representatives argued that the procedural moment to submit evidence had precluded, and the State had “not justified” its “late presentation,” because the files had been “produced prior to the presentation of the answering brief” and, therefore, could not be considered supervening evidence. They also indicated that the State sought to justify their presentation by a question posed by Judge Ferrer MacGregor Poisot concerning “the existence of documents recording expulsions from the Dominican Republic,” and this documentation “was not a record of such actions,” but rather “deportation requests relating to individuals other than the [presumed] victims in this case.” They also asked that the political map of the Dominican Republic provided by the State should not be admitted, because it was presented late, and was not relevant to this litigation. The Court considers that the presentation of the said case files responds to the request, because they are related to procedures concerning the expulsion of individuals from the Dominican Republic, and that the political map of the Dominican Republic is public knowledge; consequently, it admits this documentation. 139. Vouchers for litigation expenses of the representatives in this case presented with their final arguments. The State objected to some of the documents remitted, and this will be taken into account when examining this item in the chapter on reparations. In this regard, the Court will only consider those expenses that refer to costs and expenses that were incurred after the presentation of the motions and arguments brief (infra paras. 494 to 500). 140. Helpful evidence requested by the Court. In answer to a request by the Court, 93 on March 3, 2014, the State clarified that “when it asserted in its answering brief […] that 93 The Court asked the State, pursuant to Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure, to provide information on certain assertions included its answering brief and in its final written arguments. In the former, it had indicated that certain “initial investigations” conducted in 2000, based on actions of the DGM, indicated that Willian Medina Ferreras was really called Wilnet Van (sic). In this regard, the State had indicated that, although the DGM, in a certification of July 19, 2000, had recorded the “deportation” of Mr. Medina Ferreras, in reality that was Wilnet Van (sic). In this regard, the State had affirmed that “[t]he corresponding correction was made subsequently.” In addition, in its final written arguments, the State mentioned a document indicating that Willian Medina had obtained his identity card fraudulently, and that, according to unconcluded “investigations” by the State, “this was a case of identity theft.” Consequently, the State was asked to indicate “specifically and precisely”: (a) “the ‘correction’ made in relation to the ‘certification’ issued by the DGM and, if appropriate, to forward the Court a true copy of the document with the record or declaration” and (b) to “indicate whether the assertion made in the brief of July 19, 2000, that ‘identity card No. 019-0014832-9 [was] obtained fraudulently’ was supported by an 41