corroborate aspects related to the case.10 The Court also admits documents that are complete, or at least, those whose source and date of publication can be verified. A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 22. The Court received documents submitted by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State. In addition, it received the statements of three alleged victims, namely: 1) Yolanda Margarita González; 2) Jaime Josué Castillo González, and 3) Julijay Castillo González. Furthermore, it received statements from Luz Marina Márquez Frontado and Ricardo Soberón, proposed by the representatives, and Rafael Finol Ocando, proposed by the State, as well as the expert reports of Raúl Cubas, Alfredo Infante, Claudia Carrillo, Claudia Samayoa and Pedro Berrizbeitía, proposed by the representatives. As to the testimony rendered at the public hearing, the Court received the statements of Yelitze Lisbeth Moreno Cova, an alleged victim; Elvis José Rodríguez Moreno, a witness proposed by the State; Michael Reed Hurtado, an expert witness proposed by the representatives; and Antonio Uribarrí, an expert witness proposed by the State. B. Admission of documentary evidence 23. The Court notes that the representatives and the State forwarded several documents with their final written arguments. Along with its answer, the State presented a copy of part of the record of the prosecutorial investigation No. 24-F20-817-2003, processed before the 20th Prosecutor’s Office, and, upon submitting its final arguments, completed said file. The representatives also submitted documents with their final written arguments. The parties and the Commission were afforded the opportunity to submit observations. The Commission did not present any observations. 24. It should be noted that among the documents submitted with the closing arguments, there is a letter dated June 2, 2008 and signed by Antonio Urribarrí, the then Ombudsman of the State of Zulia, addressed to the 20 th Prosecutor’s Office, as well as two official letters dated July 27, 2010 and May 19, 2011 from the 20th Prosecutor’s Office (infra para. 96); although the parties and the Commission were given the opportunity to comment on said letter, they did not do so. 25. Although according to the Rules of Procedure only documents submitted with the closing arguments are admissible and within the exceptional circumstances contemplated,11 in this case, the representatives made a specific request in their pleadings and motions brief, which was reiterated on several occasions, that the State forward a complete copy of the files on the proceedings before the domestic courts related to the facts of this case. At the meeting prior to the public hearing12 the State indicated that it would gather these for this case. In consideration of the foregoing, the Court admits the documentation attached to the closing arguments of the State, insofar as these relate to the request made at the pretrial meeting, and provided that procedural fairness is not breached. 10 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 146 and Case of Vélez Restrepo and relatives v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 62. 11 Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure. 12 It is a constant practice of the Court to convene the Commission and the parties to a meeting prior to the public hearing, in order to discuss and clarify procedural aspects of the hearing. 7