26. Finally, when the case was submitted to the Court, the State also argued that the petitioners did not exhaust the remedy of summary trial for civil liability of public officials and employees. In this regard, the Court reiterates that the appropriate procedural moment to specify the remedies that, according to the State, were yet to be exhausted, was during the proceeding before the Commission. Therefore, the State’s argument before this Court regarding that domestic remedy is time-barred. 27. Consequently, the Court dismisses the State’s preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies. V EVIDENCE A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 28. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Commission and the parties, attached to their main briefs. The Court also received the affidavits of the witness Vicenta Tzamol Navichoc, proposed by the State, together with the expert opinions of Oscar A. Cabrera and Alejandro Morlachetti, proposed by the Commission. As for the evidence provided during the public hearing, the Court heard the statement of Marta María Gantenbein Chinchilla de Aguilar, a presumed victim, proposed by the representatives, and the statement of the expert witness Carlos Ríos Espinosa, proposed by the Commission. Finally, the Court received documents presented by the State and the representatives attached to their respective final written arguments. B. Admission of the evidence B. 1) Admission of the documentary evidence 29. In this case, as in others, the Court admits those documents presented by the parties and the Commission at the appropriate procedural moment (Article 57 of the Rules) that were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not challenged; 28 nevertheless, the Court will now rule on the disputes concerning the admissibility of certain documents. 30. In its answer brief, the State asked the Court not to admit the statements of Osiris Angélica Romano Villatoro and Claudia Fedora Quintana Mendoza, rendered before a notary and provided as evidence by the Commission, and to refrain from assessing the facts deemed proven in those statements, since they lack any veracity. The State argued that the notary who had allegedly taken the statements did not enter or attend the COF for those purposes on the day on which those statements were supposedly taken, as is evident from a certification of the log book for the entry lawyers to the COF for that day, and of a report of the person responsible for controlling prison visits of the SIAPEN program. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2015. Series C No. 309, para. 21. 28 13