9 through the “Dropbox” site, a brief in which it made general observations on the final written arguments of the representative and on the final written observations of the Commission. In the said communication of the Secretariat of July 17, 2013, the State was advised that the respective time frame did not represent “a new opportunity to present allegations or arguments.” It was pointed out that the observations presented by the State had not been requested by the Court or its President, and were not contemplated in the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and the State was advised that “their admissibility w[ould] be decided by the Court at the appropriate procedural opportunity.” In this regard, the Court does not admit those other considerations of the parties and the Commission that were presented together with the observations on the documents provided with the final written arguments because they refer to other matters. 15. Objections to the amici curiae. On June 15 and July 23, 2013, the State submitted various arguments to contest the amici curiae that had been presented, considering that “they do not comply with the purpose of this type of brief that the Court has accepted previously.” The basis for its arguments was that “the authors have no knowledge of the case and in their desire to categorize the facts of this case as violence against women, they do not contribute any new element that would be helpful to the Court when delivering judgment” and “they have no legitimacy, locus standi, to submit briefs.” 16. Disbursements in application of the Assistance Fund. On August 28, 2013, the Secretariat, on the instructions of the President, forwarded information to the State on the disbursements made in application of the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund in this case and, as established in article 5 of the Rules of the Court for the Operation of this Fund, accorded it a time frame to present any observations it deemed pertinent. On September 30, 2013, the State forwarded its observations on the report on the disbursements made in application of the Assistance Fund. III PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS A. The State’s acknowledgement of the facts in the proceedings before the Commission A.1) Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 17. During the public hearing held before the Inter-American Commission on March 20, 2009,9 the State “acknowledge[d …] several irregularities and flaws in the investigation procedure corresponding to structural problems of the Guatemalan State.” On that occasion, Guatemala stated that: At the time of the facts in 2001, […] there were no guidelines for the investigation and prosecution of crimes; [these] were established by the Public Prosecution Service in February 2006. [… I]rrespective of the reasons why the pertinent tests and the autopsy were not performed, or not performed correctly in keeping with international standards, […] the guidelines established in 2006 are the ones that are providing guidance for the investigation procedures and the hypotheses that the Public Prosecution Service is using now. 18. During this hearing, the State added that in 2001, a “structural situation of impunity and fear prevailed among the people of Guatemala, as well as of an increase in […] violent deaths.” Furthermore, in a brief of August 12, 2009, presented to the Commission,10 the State indicated that it had: 9 Cf. “IACHR. Audio recording of public hearing in Case 12,578, María Isabel Veliz Franco, Guatemala, March 20, 2009” (file of attachments to the Merits Report, tome I, annex 32.4). This annex was provided to the Court in an audio recording of the said hearing submitted by means of a link to a website: http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/audiencias/Hearings.aspx?Lang=En&Session=8). 10 The document, Ref. P 1008-09 RDVC/LZ/eh, was transmitted to the Commission under a note dated August 21, 2009, received on August 24 (file before the Commission, tome III, fs. 2105 and 2106). The State’s