documents, the Court notes that they do not fall within any of the exceptions defined in the Rules for the extemporaneous admission of evidence and are, therefore, inadmissible. 62. On March 31, 2022, the State was requested to send documentation to facilitate adjudication of the case. The State, in communication of April 8, sent what had been requested (supra para. 11).39 The Court admits this documentation pursuant to the provisions of Article 58 of its Rules. B. Admissibility of the testimonial and expert evidence 63. On January 25, 2022, the Court received the notarized statements of José Luis Guerra Soto, Yoar Lázaro Flores and Irene Jorge Rojas. Pursuant to the Order of December 13, 2021, the statement of María del Pilar Sosa San Miguel was scheduled to be received at the public hearing held on February 11, 2022. However, the State informed that, due to exceptional circumstances, the expert could not deliver her statement and requested that the Court “permit a change in form of the statement so that it could be a notarized statement.” It also requested “an extension of the period indicated in Point 3 of the Order so that it could be presented after February 11, 2021,” the date of the hearing. The Court, on January 26, 2022, exceptionally admitted, due to the circumstances, the change in the form and the extension of the period. The expert’s statement was received on February 18, 2022 within the period set by the Court. The Court deems it pertinent to admit the notarized statements40 provided that they meet the terms defined in the President’s Order to receive them and regarding the object of the case.17 VII FACTS 64. The Court will now establish the facts of the case based on the factual framework submitted by the Commission and the information provided by the representatives and by the State. It will refer: (A) to the context of the case and to the relevant norms, which were identified by the Court in Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru and in Canales Huapaya v. Peru and (B) the situation of the dismissed congressional employees in this case. A. Context and relevant norms 65. This case concerns the dismissal of 1,117 congressional employees in December 199241 after the rupture of the democratic-constitutional order in Peru that occurred on April 5, 1992, which was described in detail in Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, involving 257 dismissed employees, and in Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru, involving three victims. In those judgments, the Court held proved a series of facts that preceded the dismissal of the congressional employees, as well as the adoption of laws and administrative resolutions directed to repair the irregular dismissals that occurred during 2021-TR, Supreme Decree that approved the regulations of Law 31218, which authorizes review of the cases of the former employees who opted for the proceedings under Law 30484, published on September 30, 2021. 39 The documents provided by the State are the following: (1) Decree-Law 25438, published in the Official Gazette “El Peruano” on April 20, 1992; (2) Decree-Law 25640, published in the Official Gazette “El Peruano” on July 24, 1992; (3) Decree-Law 25759, published in the Official Gazette “El Peruano” on October 8, 1992; (4) Law 30484, published in the Official Gazette “El Peruano” on July 6. 2016 and (5) Law 31218 published in the Official Gazette “El Peruano” on June 18, 2021. Statements of José Luis Guerra Soto, Yoar Lázaro Flores and Irene Jorge Rojas, as well as the notarized statement of María del Pilar Sosa San Miguel, proposed by the State. 40 41 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, supra, para. 2. 19