“1. […] that it make a written request to the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia to issue a copy of the whole criminal proceedings opened against the pilots for the events that occurred in Santo Domingo on December 13, 1998. 2. […] that, if it considers it necessary to have authentic copies of the documents that the Colombian State is presenting as evidence and that are in the case file of the criminal proceedings opened against the crew of the UHIH aircraft, it make a written request to the Colombian Supreme Court of Justice that it send an authentic copy of the procedural documents, as the Colombian State had done on January 31, 2012,” and “3. […] that, if it considers it necessary to have authentic copies of the proceedings opened before the Attorney General’s Office and before the Council of State, it make a written request to these entities to arrange the forwarding of the said procedural documents.” 49. In this regard, in paragraph 39 of the above-mentioned Order of June 5, 2012, the President indicated that “at the appropriate moment, the Court will decide on the pertinence of requesting the documentation referred to by the State [in its considering paragraph 38],” transcribed in the preceding paragraph. 50. On June 28, 2012, the State forwarded, on its own initiative, copies of “the whole criminal case file.” In a note of the Secretariat of July 4, 2012, the State was reminded that, in the said Order, the President of the Court had not requested the documentation indicated in its considering paragraph 38. Consequently, on the instruction of the Court in plenary, the documentation sent by the State was the sent out, in the understanding that its admissibility would be determined at the opportune procedural moment. Even though this documentation was time-barred, because the State had the opportunity to present it with its answer to the submission if it considered it useful and necessary to prove its arguments, and it had not been requested by the Court, it is incorporated into the file of the instant case insofar as some of these documents were referred to by the parties in their briefs, or in other evidence provided at the appropriate time, and may be useful to decide this case. 51. In addition, the representatives forwarded, as an attachment to their final written arguments, a resolution issued by the Colombian Prosecutor General’s Office on July 24, 2012, in relation to what they consider a supervening fact. The State asked the Court to incorporate this document and presented its own observations on the value or probative implications of the resolution. This document is incorporated into the case file and will be assessed together with the body of evidence and as appropriate in this case. The other attachments presented by the representatives with their final arguments are inadmissible, because they were not submitted at the appropriate procedural opportunity, without any justification based on the causes established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure and will only be taken into account, as pertinent, as part of their arguments. C. Admission of the statements of the presumed victims and of the testimonial and expert evidence 52. The Court also admits as evidence the statements and opinions provided by the presumed victims and by the expert witnesses during the public hearing and by affidavit and, consequently, they will be assessed together with all the other elements of the body of evidence.47 VI FACTS A. Context in the department of Arauca 53. The department of Arauca is located in the northeast of Colombia, bordering Venezuela, and is divided into seven municipalities: Arauca, Arauquita, Saravena, Cravo Norte, Fortul, Puerto Rondón and Tame. The municipality of Tame is situated in the extreme south-west of the department, where two main highways meet: the Liberators Route (Bogotá-Tuna-Tame-Arauca47 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 22, para. 43, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 40. ‐ 17 ‐