113. Furthermore, the State76 and the representatives77 adduced certain documents attached to their final written arguments. The representatives then objected to most of the material submitted by the State at that stage of the proceedings, holding that it was “timebarred”. The Court replied that annexes 1 to 11 addressed the criminal trial in the domestic jurisdiction and therefore derived from the request for further helpful evidence; thus, it was necessary to add this material to the case file in order to perform a correct assessment of the proceedings and investigations conducted by the State. These evidentiary documents could properly be added to the case file in keeping with Article 58(a) of the Rules of Procedure. The Court added that the State had submitted annexes 12 and 13 without any explanation as to why they had been presented subsequent to the answering brief. The Court therefore holds that the documents were time-barred, as outlined in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, as the State had been aware of them before filing its brief, and the Court therefore would not consider them in its decision. B.2 Admission of statements and expert opinions 114. The State offered comments about how to weigh the expert opinions delivered by Alejandro Valencia Villa, Federico Andreu Guzmán and Viviana Valz Gen Rivera, as well as the testimony of Hidetaka Ogura and the statements by family members. Likewise, the representatives posed observations about assessing the statements of José Gerardo Garrido Garrido and Luis Alejandro Giampietri Rojas and of José Daniel Williams Zapata and Carlos Alberto Tello Aliaga. They argued that certain sections of the expert opinions by Derrick John Pounder and Jean Carlo Mejía Azuero should be held inadmissible. The Court is pleased to receive statements and expert opinions delivered in the public hearing or as declarations before a public attestor if they strictly apply to the purposes set forth by the President in the order of subpoena78 and to the object of the case at hand. 115. In response to the argument that the declarants had failed to answer the questions asked, the Court reiterates that the fact that the Rules of Procedure allow the parties to pose written questions to declarants brought by the other party and, when appropriate, by the Commission. This creates a related obligation for the party offering the statement to coordinate and take the necessary steps to forward the questions to the declarants and to include the respective answers. In certain circumstances, the failure to answer different questions may be The State submitted the following annexes: (1) Complaint filed by inmates at the Yanamayo prison, December 22, 2000, stamped as received on December 28, 2000; 2. Complaint filed by Eligia Rodriguez de Villoslada (mother of Luz Dina Villoslada), stamped as received on January 18, 2001; 3. Complaint filed by Maria Genara Fernandez Rosales (mother of Roli Rojas Fernandez) on January 3, 2001; 4. Ruling by the Specialized Prosecutor to designate Clyde Collins Snow and Jose Pablo Baraybar from the Peruvian Team of Forensic Anthropology as expert witnesses, March 2, 2001; 5. Opinion 018-2014 of the Second Supreme Office of the Criminal Prosecutor, January 10, 2014, registered on January 21, 2014, to submit the matter to a higher court for review (Consultation 26-2002); 6. Documents certifying the request and actions for taking statements from the Japanese citizens held hostage, and designating them to the “First Chamber” by order of the Criminal Court conducting the criminal trial, and the response to this request; 7. Statement rendered by Lucinda Rojas Landa on March 9, 2001, to the provincial prosecutor; 8. Document submitted by APRODEH asking the prosecutor to take the statement from Lucinda Rojas Landa as “domestic partner”, stamped as received on March 1, 2001; 9. Note 483-2014-P-CNM, dated February 27, 2014, sent by the National Council of the Judiciary; 10. Note 209-2010-JUS-CRJST, dated February 21, 2014, sent by the National Reparations Council; 11. Note 106-2014-IN-PTE, dated February 20, 2014, sent by the Specialized Public Prosecutor for Crimes of Terrorism; 12. Verdict by the National Criminal Chamber, May 3, 2006, concerning Lucinda Rojas Landa (case file 546-03); 13. Final superior judgment of June 20, 2008 concerning Lucinda Rojas Landa (R.N. 3818-2006). 76 The representatives supplied vouchers for expenditures incurred subsequent to the submission of the pleadings, motions and evidence brief. 77 The purposes of all these statements were explained in the President’s order, issued on behalf of the Court in this case, on December 19, 2013, operative paragraphs one and five, which can be found in Spanish on the Court’s website at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/cruz_19_12_13.pdf 78