- 16 47. The representative forwarded, with his final written arguments, vouchers for the expenses he incurred following the submission of the motions and arguments brief. The State argued that these new requests for costs should be declared inadmissible as they were time-barred, because the representative should have made the requests in his motions and arguments brief. The Court recalls that, under Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, evidence of facts that take place following the motions and arguments brief is admissible in the case of the representative of the presumed victim. Therefore, following its consistent practice, the Court admits the documentation on costs and expenses incurred after the presentation of the motions and arguments brief, sent by the representative together with his final written arguments, and incorporates it into the body of evidence. 48. On April 13, and June 11 and 18, 2015, the representative sent information on a request made on March 3, 2015, in the domestic sphere to “change house arrest to an order to appear in court periodically,” for the Court to assess it, “because it related to a supervening fact.” The State opposed the admission of this information because, in its opinion, the representative had not founded his request satisfactorily and the results of the request “are not included in the matters that are being analyzed by the Court […] in this case.” According to the State, the representative did not identify the specific purpose of his request or the provisions of the Rules of Procedure on which he based it. In addition, he did not specify why the request to change the house arrest would represent, “strictly, a ‘supervening fact,’” and had failed to indicate what he sought to prove with this documentation, or with which to the disputed issues it was related. In this regard, this Court finds that the documentation forwarded by the representative constitutes updated information on the detention situation of Wong Ho Wing, which is part of the factual framework and purpose of this case. Since it refers to facts that have occurred and remedies filed following the representative’s last communication, it constitutes information and evidence of supervening facts; therefore, the Court admits the said information under Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. B.2) Admission of the testimonial and expert evidence 49. The Court also finds it pertinent to admit the statements of the presumed victim and the witnesses, and the expert opinions provided during the public hearing and by affidavit, to the extent that they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them (supra para. 10) and the purpose of this case. 50. The representative asked the Court to reject the expert opinions offered by the State because they were not objective. He argued that, during the hearing, the State had accepted that its agents “had ‘levels of coordination’ with the expert witnesses that they proposed”; thus, expert witness Ang Sun read his answers to the questions posed by the State. According to the representative, “[t]his situation not only violated the right to defense of [his] client, because he was unable to have the same ‘levels of coordination,’ but also completely invalidates the opinion of [the] expert witnesses.” In addition, specifically with regard to Ang Sun, he argued that the latter had a direct interest in the result of the case, asking the Court more than once to take a prompt decision on Wong Ho Wing’s extradition. The Court considers that the representative’s observations refer to the scope and probative value that should be granted to these expert opinions, which does not affect their admissibility as part of the body of evidence. The Court will take these observations into account when assessing this evidence in its analysis of the merits of the case. 51. For its part, the State asked the Court to reject the expert opinions of Geoff Gilbert, Carmen Wurst and Ben Saul. According to the State, expert witness Geoff Gilbert did not have the required profile and sufficient experience in the matter covered by his opinion; it also contested the application of the precedents used by the expert witness to the case of Wong Ho Wing.