the Court has ruled in this regard,16 the Court concludes that only Mr. Jenkins will be considered the presumed victim in this case and that it is not appropriate to admit the other family members as presumed victims. VI EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of documentary evidence 38. The Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives and the State. Regarding the documents provided in the context of these proceedings, the Court admits them, as it has in other cases, in the understanding that they were presented at the proper procedural moment (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure)17 and that their admissibility was not contested or challenged. B. Admissibility of testimonial and expert evidence 39. The Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements and expert opinions provided during the public hearing and by affidavit18 insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them.19 VII FACTS 40. In this chapter, based on the factual framework submitted to its consideration by the InterAmerican Commission, the Court will establish the facts of the case as they relate to: (i) the arrest, preventive detention and criminal proceedings instituted against Mr. Jenkins, and (ii) the civil action for damages. A. Arrest, preventive detention and criminal proceedings against Mr. Jenkins a.1 Arrest of Mr. Jenkins 41. On June 7, 1994, the Federal Operations Division of the Dangerous Drugs Superintendency of the Argentine Federal Police and the Intelligence Division of the National Gendarmerie requested a search of the residence and arrest of Mr. Jenkins as the result of an investigation conducted by the Federal Operations Division, which indicated that activities relating to illicit drug-trafficking were being conducted in the residence of Mr. Jenkins, among others.20 16 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra, para. 98, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 25. The documentary evidence may be presented, in general and pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, together with the briefs submitting the case, or with pleadings and motions, or the answering brief, as applicable, and evidence forwarded outside these procedural occasions is not admissible unless it falls within the exceptions established in the said Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (namely, force majeure and grave impediment) or if it relates to a supervening fact, in other words, one that occurred after the aforementioned procedural moments. Cf. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 22, and Case of Arrom Suhurt et al. v. Paraguay. Merits. Judgment of May 13, 2019. Series C No. 377, para. 40. 17 During the public hearing held on February 1, 2019, the Court received the statement of presumed victim Gabriel Óscar Jenkins, and the opinion of expert witness Mario Luis Coriolano. In addition, the Court received affidavits from Leticia Pironelli and Tomás las Peñas Vallejo, and the notarized expert opinion of Mario Luis Coriolano, all proposed by the representatives. 18 The purposes of all these statements was established in order of the President of the Inter-American Court of December 19, 2018. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/jenkins_19_12_18.pdf 19 Cf. Request of the Federal Operations Division of the Dangerous Drugs Superintendency and the Intelligence Division of the National Gendarmerie of June 7, 1994 (evidence file, folio 5749). 20 11