evidence by its Presidency, 31 which were neither disputed nor objected, and whose authenticity was not questioned. 32 61. On April 12, 2021, the State presented several annexes together with the final written arguments. 33 The State alleged that it is supervening evidence related to events that occurred after the presentation of the answer on August 20, 2020 and requested that it be admitted in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. In this regard, the Court recalls The following information was requested as additional evidence from the State and all the representatives of the alleged victims: (a) Documents or certificates showing the amount of salary and remuneration (bonuses) received at the time of the events by Messrs. Cuya Lavy, Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Rodríguez Ricse, and (b) remuneration for benefits received by the four alleged victims at the time of removal from office and, whether they currently receive a pension derived from their performance in their positions, respectively, and as of what date and, if applicable, the amount thereof, as well as any other related information. In addition, the State was asked to report on the current amount that would correspond for a similar position that the presumed victims would occupy for that item (with the exception of Mr. Valenzuela, of whom the information was already available), the presentation of different regulations and a report from the Ombudsman, and from the representatives of Mr. Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Rodríguez Ricse various documents related to briefs and appeals filed, as well as decisions adopted in the amparo and constitutional tort proceedings followed in the domestic jurisdiction. 32 The State reported on points (a) and (b) requested as additional evidence (supra footnote 31). It also submitted the following documentation: (a) Reference report accrediting the contributions made by Mr. Cuya Lavy; (b) evidence related to the Recognition Bonus; (c) report of social security contributions; (d) report of payments made to Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse, until February 2021, and (e) Ombudsman’s Report No. 109, entitled “Basic proposal of the Ombudsman for Justice reform in Peru. Generating Consensus on what should be reformed, who will be in charge of doing it and how they will do it”, dated November 27, 2006. As well as the following regulations: (a) 1979 Political Constitution of Peru; (b) 1993 Political Constitution of Peru; (c) Decree Law No. 18060 of December 23, 1969; (d) Organic Law of the Judiciary, Decree Law No. 14605 of July 25, 1963, and (e) Organic Law of the National Council of the Judiciary, Law No. 30916 published on February 19, 2019. The representative of Mr. Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado and Ms. María Silvana Rodríguez Ricse reported on points (a) and (b) requested as additional evidence (supra footnote 31). Regarding Mr. Díaz Alvarado, he presented the following documentation: (a) Writ of Amparo filed by Mr. Díaz Alvarado on December 6, 2006 before the Combined Court of Puente Piedra, Santa Rosa and Ancón; (b) Mr. Díaz Alvarado's appeal brief against the decision of December 12, 2006 (dated January 11, 2006), and (c) Constitutional tort appeal filed by Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado before the Constitutional Court on August 3, 2007, against the Judgment of the Second Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Northern Lima (of September 4, 2007). Regarding Ms. Rodríguez Ricse, she presented the following documentation: (a) Supreme Resolution No. 094-87 appointing Marta Rodríguez Ricse as Deputy Provincial Prosecutor of the Huancayo Combined Provincial Prosecutor's Office of the Junín Judicial District, May 6, 1987; (b) Writ of amparo filed by Marta Rodríguez Ricse against the National Council of the Judiciary of December 11, 2006 before the Combined Court of Puente Piedra, of the Superior Court of Justice of North Lima; (c) Decision of the Combined Court of Puente Piedra, Santa Rosa and Ancón against Ms. Rodríguez Ricse of December 18, 2006; (d) Appeal filed by Marta Rodríguez Ricse against the Judgment of the Combined Court of Puente Piedra, Santa Rosa and Ancón of December 18, 2006, and (e) Constitutional tort appeal against the previous decision before the Constitutional Court filed by Ms. Rodríguez. The representatives of Mr. Cuya Lavy presented information on his monthly salary, for which he presented (a) Payment receipt for April 2002, position Judge/Member of Court I, with net payment to be paid of S/2,506.19 (remuneration); (b) Pay slip April 2002, position Judge/ Member of Court I, with net payment to be paid of S/4,300.00 (operating expenses), and (c) Pay slip March 2002, position Judge/ Member of Court I, with net payment of S / 3 143.00 (jurisdictional bonus). On September 8, 2021, the State forwarded the supplementary additional evidence, and attached the following annexes: (a) proof of payment of remuneration of Mr. Cuya Lavy, corresponding to the period of 2002; (b) proof of jurisdictional bonus payments of Mr. Cuya Lavy, corresponding to the 2002 period; (c) proof of payments of operating expenses of Mr. Cuya Lavy for the period 2002; (d) proof of payment of salaries and deductions of Mr. Díaz Alvarado, corresponding to the year 2001; (e) proof of payment of salaries and deductions of Ms. Rodríguez Ricse, corresponding to the year 2001; (f) report of the contributions made by Mr. Cuya Lavy from July 1999 to June 2021; (g) proof of payment of Mr. Valenzuela's pension from January 2021 to August 2021, and (h) proof of payment from January 2021 to July 2021 of Ms. Rodríguez Ricse. 33 The annexes presented by the State are: (a) Official Letter No. 1718-2000-JUS/CDJE-PPES of September 16, 2020 and proposal for the draft Friendly Settlement Agreement, with the alleged victims Díaz Alvarado and Rodríguez Ricse; (b) Official Letter No. 000234-2000-SG/JNJ of November 12, 2020, issued in the context of the negotiations on a possible Friendly Settlement Agreement, with the alleged victims Díaz Alvarado and Rodríguez Ricse, and (c) Resolution No. 260- 2020-JNJ of December 9, 2020, which approved and annexed the Regulations for the Comprehensive Evaluation Procedure and Ratification of Judges of the Judiciary and Prosecutors of the Public Prosecution. In addition, the State presented: (a) report on the payment of pensions from September 2020 to February 2021, of Mr. Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna, contained in the certificate of payment of pensions dated March 10, 2021, and (b) report on the payment of pensions from September 2020 to February 2021, of Ms. Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse, contained in the proof of payment of March 10, 2021. Finally, the State sent information regarding the amount of the salary that Mr. Valenzuela Cerna received in the time of the events and the current amount that would correspond to him or similar position that the alleged victim would occupy, requested in the order of the President of the Court of January 28, 2021. To this end, it presented information and clarifications in this regard, as well as the proof of payment of remuneration, jurisdictional bonus and operating expenses for the 2002 period for Mr. Valenzuela Cerna. 31 17