Arriaza proposed by the Commission; expert witnesses Dimitrios Dimoulis and María Auxiliadora Minahum proposed by the State, and presumed victims André Herzog and Ivo Herzog and expert witnesses Juan Méndez, Fabio Simas, Renado Sérgio de Lima and Ana C. Deutsh, proposed by the representatives. Regarding the evidence provided during the public hearing, the Court received the statements of presumed victim Clarice Herzog, witness Marlon Weichert and expert witness Sergio Gardenghi Suiama, proposed by the representatives, and of expert witness Alberto Zacharias Toron, proposed by the State. B. Admission of the evidence B.1. Admission of the documentary evidence 100. In this case, as in others, the Court admits those documents presented by the parties and the Commission at the proper procedural moment (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure), that were not contested or challenged, and the authenticity of which was not questioned. 44 In addition, the Court will now decide various disputes concerning the admissibility of certain documents. 101. After the time limit for presenting annexes to the brief answering the submission of the case and with preliminary objections had expired, the State made a late submission of a document 45 previously identified in the list of annexes. The document was considered timebarred ad was not admitted to the case file. 102. With regard to the documents on costs and expenses forwarded by the representatives with their final written arguments, the Court will only consider those that refer to new costs and expenses incurred during the proceedings before this Court; in other words, those made following presentation of the motions and pleadings brief. Consequently, it will not consider invoices dated prior to the presentation of the motions and pleadings brief, because they should have been presented at the proper procedural moment. 103. In addition, the Court points out that the State submitted various observations on the annexes provided by the representatives with their final written arguments. 46 These observations refer to the content and probative value of the documents and do not constitute an objection to their admission. B.2. Admission of the statements and expert opinions 104. The Court deems it pertinent to admit the statements made during the public hearing and the affidavits, insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined in the order requiring them and the purpose of this case. C. Assessment of the evidence 105. As established in Articles 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, and also in its consistent case law concerning evidence and its assessment, the Court will examine 44 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 140, and Case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua, para. 20. The document consists of the pages dedicated to Vladimir Herzog in the publication: “Direito à Memória e à Verdade” [The Right to memory and truth]. 45 The State presented various observations on the annexes and argued that it was not sufficient that probative documents were merely submitted; rather, the parties were required to include arguments relating the evidence to the facts that it was supposed to represent and, in the case of alleged financial disbursements, the items and their justification had to be clearly established. 46 22