evidence that refers to an event which occurred after the procedural moments indicated.15 Consequently, those documents submitted at the time of presentation of the aforementioned final written arguments are inadmissible because they were extemporaneous.16 B. Admissibility of statements and expert evidence 23. The Court considers it appropriate to admit the statements made before a notary17 and in a public hearing18 insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring they be received, and the purpose of this case.19 VI FACTS 24. The facts of this case will be determined by the Court based on the factual framework presented by the Commission, the arguments of the parties, and the evidence provided. From this account, for better understanding, these will be determined in the following order: (a) relevant regulatory framework; (b) disciplinary proceedings against Víctor Henrry Mina Cuero, and (c) challenge mechanisms initiated by Mr. Mina Cuero. A. Relevant regulatory framework 25. The Criminal Code of the National Civil Police regulated the following, in the pertinent part: Article 1. For the purposes of this Code, offenses are imputable acts punishable by this Code and the National Civil Police Disciplinary Regulations and are divided into criminal offenses and disciplinary Cf. Case of the Barrios family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 17, and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 25, 2022. Series C No. 462, para. 26. 16 The following documents are involved: (a) submitted by the State: (i) copies of six judicial proceedings processed before the administrative litigation jurisdiction against administrative acts of dismissal or discharge of members of the National Police; (ii) copies of eight judicial proceedings initiated before the administrative litigation jurisdiction against administrative acts of the discipline of members of the Armed Forces, and (iii) record No. 2022- 324-IGENOF-D of April 13, 2022, referring to legal criterion No. 2022-418-JURID-IGEN-CJ-D of April 13, 2022, signed by the Chief of Legal Counsel of the Office of the Inspector General of the National Police of Ecuador, and (b) sent by the representative: (i) Resolution of the Disciplinary Tribunal of September 13, 1996; (ii) Decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal of January 13, 1999; (iii) General Order No. 21, issued by the General Commander of the National Police on February 1, 1999; (iv) Resolution No. 007-2000-NP of the Constitutional Court, approved in the session of January 12, 2000, Case No. 352-99-AA; (v) Judgement No. 4-13-IA/20 of the Constitutional Court, issued on December 2, 2020, case No. 4-13-IA; vi) Resolution of the Specialized Civil and Commercial Chamber of the Guayas Provincial Court of Justice dated June 29, 2021, in Case No. 09574-2021-00165; (vii) A press release published in the newspaper "Plan V" on December 8, 2021, entitled “El retorno del General Víctor Araus pone en evidencia conflictos en la cúpula policial" [The return of General Víctor Araus highlights conflicts in the police leadership], available at: https://www.planv.com.ec/historias/politica/el-retorno-del-general-victor-araus-poneevidencia-conflictos-lacupula-policial, and (viii) official letter No. I-OF-2019-604-DP-AP-ISSPOL dated November 6, 2019, signed by the Head of the Contributions Section of the Institute of the Social Security Institute of the National Police. With regard to the following documents, it should be noted that they were duly incorporated into the proceedings: (i) Resume of Víctor Henrry Mina Cuero, issued by the Directorate of Personnel of the National Police of Ecuador on May 29, 2003; (ii) Judgment of September 23, 1994, handed down by the High Court of Babahoyo, case identified as Criminal Instance No. 39-94; (iii) Resolution of August 5, 1998, issued by the Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court, Case No. 31-98-RA, and (iv) Resolution No. 007-2000-NP of the Constitutional Court, approved in the session of January 12, 2000, Case No. 352-99-AA. 17 The Court received the statement made before a notary public of Jenniffer Yomaira Holguín Méndoza (case file of evidence, volume V, affidávits, pages 1882 to 1890). 18 In a public hearing, the Court heard the statement of Víctor Henrry Mina Cuero and received the expert opinion of Hernán Víctor Gullco. 19 The objects of the declarations are established in the Resolution of the President of the Court February 11, 2022. 15