26. With regard to the transcripts of the police reports of September 10 and 15, 2003, mentioned in both the Merits Report and the brief of pleadings and motions, the State indicated that the Commission, upon examining these documents, did not identify them as transcripts, when “in order to carry out the analysis, it should have had the official recorded documents, at least, in photocopies.” Also, with regard to the transcript dated September 10, 2003, mentioned by the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief, the State pointed out that there was a mistake because the annex that supposedly contained it was not the one included. The State added that the document identified as “the representatives’ transcript of the police report of September 15, 2003” is not included among the certified copies of the case file examined by the counsel for the State. 27. In this regard, the Court points out that the aforementioned reports of September 10 and 15, 2003 have already been submitted by the State, the first one along with the attachments to the answer brief, and the second with the copies of File No. C-585 (supra paras. 8 and 18). Therefore, these reports form part of the body of evidence in this case. 28. Furthermore, considering that the representatives submitted, with their final written arguments, receipts for legal expenses related to this case, these shall be taken into account only insofar as they are relevant. C. Admission of statements of the alleged victims and of the testimonial and expert evidence 29. As to the statements rendered by the alleged victims, the witnesses and the expert opinions presented via affidavit, on February 27, 2012, the representatives submitted the requested statements (supra para. 11), and explained that “it [had been] impossible to have a notary public legally authenticate the statements due to the fact that the Venezuelan authorities have refused to process documents containing written evidence.”13 30. On February 29, 2012 the State filed a brief in which it argued that, according to the Order of the Court of January 31, 2012 (supra para. 11), the statements should have been presented on February 22, 2012; however, at the request of the representatives, the deadline was extended until February 28, 2012, although, as of that date, the documents had not been received. Consequently, the State considered that the statements had been submitted extemporaneously and “reject[ed... the] excuse (given by the representatives) because it could not be verified.” 31. In response to this communication, that same day the Secretariat informed the State that on the morning of February 29, 2012 the representatives had forwarded the relevant statements via email. The Court finds that these statements were presented within the prescribed period, even though they had not been authenticated by a notary public due to the aforementioned attitude of the State authorities (supra paras. 11 and 29). Consequently, it considers that, in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 13 According to the representatives, on “February 17, 2010” the testimonies of Yelitze Moreno Cova, Julijay Castillo González, Jaime Josué Castillo González and Yolanda González” were presented before the Notary Public of the Municipality Paz Castillo, State of Miranda, and “all these were purely and simply rejected and returned.” Likewise, the affidavits of the expert witnesses Claudia Ernestina Carrillo, Pedro Berrizbeitia, Lisandro Raúl Cubas and Alfredo Infante, were rejected as well as the testimony of Luz Marina Márquez Frontado, upon being presented to the Thirty-seventh Notary’s Office of the Municipio Libertador on “February 27, 2010” and to the Forty-third Notary’s Office on January 24, 2012. Consequently, they presented to the Court the signed statements of Yolanda Margarita González, Jaime Josué Castillo González, Julijay Castillo González, Luz Marina Márquez Frontado, Lisandro Raúl Cubas, Pedro Berrizbeitia, Alfredo Infante and Claudia Ernestina Carrillo, together with the statements of Claudia Samayoa and Ricardo Soberón authenticated by a Notary Public. 8