reinforced by the fact that it is the State that was in charge of the evidence to disprove that the death was the result of abuse. 25. Based on the gravity of the facts and the violations acknowledged by the State, the Court considers it necessary to deliver a judgment in which it determines the facts that occurred based on the evidence provided in the proceedings before it and their recognition by the State, as doing so contributes to providing victims with reparations, preventing similar facts from being repeated, and, essentially, fulfilling the purpose of the interAmerican human rights jurisdiction.15 In particular, the Court deems it necessary to analyze the scope of the State’s international responsibility owing to the actions of the Argentine Federal Police in the context of the illegal and arbitrary detention of Mr. Acosta Martínez. The Court will also rule on the corresponding reparations. This analysis will help clarify jurisprudential criteria on the matter and the corresponding protection of the human rights of the victims in this case. 26. Additionally, the Court does not consider it necessary at this time to open up a discussion on all the points that were the subject of litigation, since some of the legal claims alleged and recognized by the State in this case—such as regarding José Delfín Acosta Martínez’s right to personal integrity and life, as well as the violation of judicial guarantees and judicial protection, to the detriment of his relatives—have already been well established by the Inter-American Court in other cases. V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 27. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives, and the State, which, as in other cases, it admits in the understanding that they were presented at the appropriate procedural moment (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure).16 28. Additionally, in its final arguments, the State submitted—in an annex—a report of March 2017 from the Office of the Institutional Violence Attorney of the Public Prosecutor's Office (PROCUVIN). Despite the fact that this evidence was not presented at the proper procedural moment, because it was submitted as part of the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility, and taking into account that the other parties raised no objections to it, the Court admits PROCUVIN's opinion as evidence for the purposes of better adjudication and considering it pertinent and necessary for the evaluation of the facts.17 Cf. Case of Tu Tojin v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 26, and Case of Ruiz Fuentes et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 9, 2020. Series C No. 401, para. 28. 15 Documentary evidence, in general and pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, may be presented with the application brief, the pleadings and motions brief, or the answering brief, as applicable, and evidence submitted outside these procedural opportunities cannot be admitted, except in the event of the exceptions stated in the aforementioned Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (namely, force majeure, serious impediment) or it refers to an event which occurred after the procedural moments indicated. Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, paras. 17 and 18, and Case of Valle Ambrosio et al. v. Argentina. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of July 20, 2020. Series C No. 408, para. 13. 16 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 71, mutatis mutandis, Case of Espinoza González v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014, Series C No. 289, para. 43. 17 10