the evidence as a whole, insofar as they can provide greater information on the alleged violations and their consequences.41 D. Admission and assessment of the amicus curiae briefs 37. The State asked the Court to refrain from admitting the amicus curiae briefs, considering that have no legal basis since they ignore the real situation of inmates in the Guatemalan prison system, particularly in the instant case. The State argued that such briefs do not fulfill their objective providing the Court with arguments and appraisals that expand the elements of judgement currently available in this case and presented a series of arguments regarding each of the briefs. They argued, inter alia, that their authors are not familiar with the defense and counter arguments put forward by the State during the proceedings before the Court; that they introduce new situations or facts in breach of the State´s right of defense; that they reveal a lack of knowledge of the case and of Guatemala’s social, legal and political context; and, that they do not fulfill the purpose of an amicus curiae brief that the Court has accepted previously and, in general, that they lack “legitimacy locus standi to submit briefs in this case.” 38. The Court points out that, according to Article 2(3) of the Rules of Procedure, an amicus curiae is a “person or institution who is unrelated to the case and to the proceeding” brought before the Court, in order to submit “reasoned arguments on the facts contained in the presentation of the case or legal considerations on the subject-matter of the proceeding.” In other words, such an individual or institution is not a procedural party in the litigation and the document submitted is intended to illustrate to the Court factual or legal matters related to the proceeding before it, without the Court having to rule on the correctness or otherwise of such briefs. Consequently, the State’s observations do not affect the admissibility of the amici curiae briefs,42 notwithstanding that the substance of such observations may be considered when assessing the information contained therein. VII FACTS 39. In this chapter the Court will set out the facts of this case, based on the factual framework established in the Report of the Commission, including those presented by the parties that may explain, clarify or dismiss said factual framework 43 and, where pertinent, the facts in dispute. A. Regarding the alleged victim 40. It is an undisputed fact that, at the time when the alleged violations of the Convention took place, Mrs. María Inés Chinchilla Sandoval had been arrested on May 30, 1995 and that in the same year she was sentenced to 30 years in prison for the crimes of murder and Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 22, para. 43, and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, supra, para. 25. 41 Cf. Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. the Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, para. 15. 42 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153; and Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 49. 43 16