of its reception is not legible and it does not appear in the files of this entity (the State provided 40 another certification in this regard ). 51. The Court notes that, in their motions and arguments brief, the representatives had asked the Court to require certain information from the Chilean Consulate in Bolivia. The Order of the President indicated that “at the appropriate moment, a decision w[ould] be taken on the pertinence of requiring the information requested.” Subsequently, following a request of the Court in application of Articles 26 (“Cooperation of the States”) and 58(c) (“Procedure for obtaining evidence”) of the Rules of Procedure, the State of Chile confirmed the authenticity of the documentation provided by the presumed victim and his representatives and, in particular, of the Chilean authorities that issued it and the respective dates. In other words, there is no doubt about the authenticity of the documentation provided. Following this, on July 12, 2013, the State of Bolivia asked the Court to require “the Chilean Government to send information on the confirmation of receipt and processing given to the note received by the Chilean Consulate General in Bolivia on July 9, 2012, and which had not yet been answered.” The State of Chile was asked to provide this information, and answered by forwarding a note from that Consulate dated August 13, 2013, addressed to the Bolivian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in which it responded to the request. On receiving this note, on September 19, 2013, the State advised the Court that it “corroborated that it was unaware of the information” and that “the Chilean State’s delay in forwarding the information had influenced the actions of the Plurinational State of Bolivia in the proceedings before this international court, […] so that the State’s good faith could not be doubted.” 52. The Court notes that the documentation received is related to the request, opportunely presented by the representatives, for the Court to eventually request helpful evidence. In addition, given that the documentation transmitted by the presumed victims refers to actions of Bolivian institutions and agents involved in the facts, the State should have known or could have had access to the same information or a large part of it. To this extent, the burden of proof cannot fall on the presumed victims who could only have access to the information indirectly through another State and forwarded it to the Court. The documentation provided may be relevant to this case, in which one of the central facts disputed between the parties is whether the Bolivian immigration authorities knew or were informed about the resident or refugee status of the presumed victims in Chile, or about their real possibility of returning to that country before their deportation from Bolivia. The relevance of the information is such that the State itself has indicated that, if it had known of its existence, it would have undertaken “internal investigations and, if necessary, would have examined the possibility of acquiescing to the legal consequences.” In addition, based on the adversarial principle, once received, this documentation was promptly forwarded to the State, which has had full opportunity to exercise its right of defense and has even provided other documents in this regard. Consequently, because it considers them useful for deciding this case, the Court incorporates the documents referred to above, provided by both the presumed victims and the State, into the body of evidence under Article 58(c) of the Rules of Procedure. iv. Annexes to the State’s final written arguments 53. With regard to the documents provided with its final written arguments, concerning which the representatives and the Commission were given the opportunity to present 40 During the hearing, the State presented a General Immigration Directorate report of March 15, 2013, which responded to a request of the Attorney General regarding whether there was “documentation sent by the Consulate and/or Embassy of Chile to the General Immigration Service (current General Immigration Directorate) dated February 19, 20, 21 and 22, 2001, accrediting that, at that time, Romualdo Pacheco Osco and Fredesvinda Tineo Godos, Peruvian nationals, had refugee status in Chile.” This document indicates that “a report of March 15, 2013, issued by […] the Head of the National Archive of [the said] Directorate […] established that, following a search of the documentation that exists in the National Archive for 2001, no documentation sent by the Consulate and/or Embassy of Chile was found for the dates indicated” (evidence file, folio1345.). 18