make such substantial changes in the positions it took in the domestic proceedings, before the Inter-American Commission 31 and before the Court in its answering brief by, following the public hearing before the Court, presenting a hypothesis concerning nonrecognition of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community as an indigenous or tribal people. 57. Therefore, the Court rejects this new argument presented by the State, notwithstanding the considerations in the chapter of this judgment on the facts. B. Admissibility of some facts of the factual framework B.1 Exclusion of the facts and arguments related to “Sierra Rio Tinto” National Park 58. In the chapter on proven facts of its Merits Report of March 21, 2003, the Commission noted that Decision 007-2011 of the National Institute of Forest Conservation and Development, Protected Areas and Wildlife had declared the “Sierra Rio Tinto” National Park a protected area, and that this covers part of the Garifuna territory. Also, even though no legal effects had been granted to this fact in the Merits Report, during the public hearing the Commission indicated that “a forest reserve has been created in part of the community’s territory without prior consultation.” 59. The representatives added that the said decision had been published in the Gazette on July 5, 2011, and even though the Executive’s decision had not been validated by the National Congress, they considered that the fact that it had been published in the Gazette was a sign that the State had executed legal acts involving the Garifuna territory. 60. The State made no reference to the “Sierra Rio Tinto” National Park in its answering brief. 61. During the public hearing of the case, the Court asked the parties to provide precise information on the location of the said national park and the area of the territory of the Punta Piedra community that would presumably be affected. 62. On November 10, 2014, the State indicated that the location of the National Park did not cover the territory titled in favor of the Punta Piedra community and provided a map to support this assertion. Despite repeated requests by the Court's Secretariat, 32 the representatives failed to forward evidence to support their position. 63. Taking into account the information provided by the State as helpful evidence and given the absence of evidence to support the representatives’ position, the Court noted that the “Sierra Rio Tinto” National Park was located outside the territory titled to the Punta Piedra community. It observed that the territory titled to the community is located to the north of the Tinto River, whereas the Sierra Rio Tinto National Park is located to the south of that river. The Court has no additional evidence which would link the “Sierra Rio Tinto” National Park and the territory titled to the community. 31 Cf. Case of Neira Alegria et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 29, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre, supra, para. 148. 32 Cf. Secretariat notes of October 24 and December 3 and 19, 2014 (merits file, folios 589, 690 and 706). 18