17. On December 7, 2011, the aforementioned request was reiterated to the State (supra paras. 12 and 15). 18. On January 24, 2012, the State presented its written closing arguments, along with attachments, and the Commission submitted its final written observations. On January 25, 2012, the representatives filed their closing written arguments together with the attachments. 19. On January 27 and February 3, 2012, following the instructions of the President, in a note from the Secretariat, a deadline was set for submitting observations to the documents forwarded by the representatives and the State along with their closing arguments, specifically indicating that this did not constitute a new opportunity to expand the arguments and that the admissibility of any documents that had not been requested by the Court or its President would be determined at the appropriate time. On February 17, 2012, the representatives and the Commission submitted the requested observations; the State, on the other hand, did not. On February 21, 2012, in a note from the Secretariat, the State was reminded of the request for the abovementioned observations. 20. On February 10 March 12, 2012, the same request was repeated once again (supra para. 12), without any response from the State. 21. On May 3, 2012 the State was notified, in a note from the Secretariat and upon the instructions of the President, of the expenditures made through the Legal Assistance fund13 in the present case, and was granted a non-extendable deadline of May 15, 2012 to make any observations it deemed pertinent; the State did not submit any comments. III JURISDICTION 22. It has not been disputed that the Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case,14 given that Venezuela has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 9, 1977, and accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. IV EVIDENCE 23. Based on the relevant provisions and Rules of Procedure15 and on the Court’s consistent case law16, the Court shall examine and assess the documentary evidence Chang and Dorialbys de la Rosa, of COFAVIC; Ariela Peralta and Francisco Quintana of CEJIL; and for the State: Germán Saltrón Negrettri, Agent, and Luis Britto García and Norevy Cortez, attorneys of the State Agency for Human Rights. 13 Article 5 of the Court’s Rules for the Operation of the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund. 14 Article 62(3) of the Convention. 15 Articles 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 7