-34arguments correspond to the evidence requested de oficio by the Inter-American Court during the public hearing.” 76. In this regard, the Court notes that, as indicated by the State, during the public hearing (supra para. 31), the President of the Court requested general information and documentation from the State, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives concerning different aspects of this case. Consequently, the Court understands that this documentation was presented by the State in response to the verbal request of the President; consequently, it is formally incorporated in application of Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the Inter-American Commission that many of the documents submitted by the State were incomplete and disordered, and that the administrative and judicial case files that were provided were incomplete. Owing to the way in which this documentation was submitted, the Court accepts it and assesses it to the extent that it is useful for determining the facts of this case, taking into account the defects that have been indicated. 77. The Court also notes that on December 21, 2005, the State submitted documentation concerning one of the items that was requested as useful evidence (supra para. 37), after the request had been repeated three times in notes from the Secretariat dated November 9, 14 and 21, 2005 (supra para. 32). The Court recalls that, based on the principle of international cooperation, the parties should not only forward to the Court the evidence it requests, but should do so opportunely and in a complete, orderly and legible manner, so that the Court has as much evidence as possible to understand the facts and justify its decisions.17 The Court formally incorporates this evidence into the body of evidence, in accordance with the considerations indicated below (infra para. 94) as it is useful for deciding this case. 78. Also, in application of the provisions of Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court incorporates into the body of evidence in the instant case, the following evidence already assessed in Case of the 19 Merchants and the Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, because it is useful to decide this case: Legislative Decree No. 3398 of December 24, 1965; Decrees Nos. 0180 of January 27, 1988, 0815 of April 19, 1989, 085/1989, 1194 of June 8, 1989, 3030/90 of December 14, 1990, 2266 of October 4, 1991, 2535 of December 17, 1993, 356/94 of February 11, 1994, 324 of February 25, 2000, 3360 of November 24, 2003, 2767 of August 31, 2004, and 250 of February 7, 2005; Acts 48 of December 16, 1968, 200/1995, 387 of July 18, 1997, 418 of December 26, 1997, 548 of December 23, 1999, and 782 of December 23, 2002; the judgment of May 25, 1989, delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice, the judgment of May 28, 1997, delivered by the Cúcuta Regional Court, the judgment of March 17, 1998, delivered by the Military Superior Court, and the judgment of April 14, 1998 delivered by the Tribunal Nacional; the report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on summary or arbitrary executions on a visit to Colombia from October 11 to 20, 1989; and the reports of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Colombia of 1998, 2000, 2004 and 2005. 79. The Court also incorporates into the body of evidence the joint report of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, Mr. Nigel S. Rodley and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Mr. Barce Waly 17 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 93.