17 by the State that, based on these instruments, there is and there was at the time of the facts a State obligation to pay special attention to victims of sexual violence. For its part, the Commission indicated that it had no observations on the documentation forwarded by Mexico. 43. The Court recalls that Mexico’s Official Norm: NOM-046-SSA2-2005 was provided by the State in response to a request by the Court during the public hearing held in this case, and moreover, said document was provided by the State during the public hearing,38 and whose admission has been accepted by the Court (supra para. 39). The Court will take into consideration the observations of the representatives with regard to both documents, together with the body of evidence, in application of the rules of sound judicial discretion. 44. Regarding the documents concerning expenses forwarded by the representatives, Mexico observed that they had not been submitted at the appropriate procedural opportunity and that, with this late presentation, “the representatives are attempting to rectify an aspect they omitted to comply with almost ten months ago.” The Commission indicated that it had no observations to make in this regard. 45. In relation to the expense vouchers forwarded by the representatives on May 25, 2010, the Court observes that they were time-barred; nevertheless, it will admit them with exception because there was a minimum delay of one day, and because it does not appear that their admission will impair the State’s defense. Notwithstanding the abovementioned, the Court will only consider those documents forwarded with the final written arguments that refer to new costs and expenses incurred due to the proceedings before this Court, namely, those incurred subsequent to the brief of pleadings and motions. (infra para. 298). C. Assessment of the statements of the alleged victims and of the testimonial and expert evidence 46. Regarding the statements of the alleged victims and the witnesses, and the expert opinions provided during the public hearing and by means of sworn statements, the Court finds them pertinent only to the extent that they comply with the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order which required they be submitted (supra paras. 28 and 29), and in conjunction with the other elements of the body of evidence, taking into account the observations made by the parties.39 47. The Court observes that the State in presenting its observations on the affidavits sent to it on March 31, 2010 was two days late.40 The original time frame for forwarding the observations expired on April 7, 2010, which was extended until April 13, 2010, at the State’s request. Despite this, Mexico submitted said observations at the end of the public hearing on April 15, 2010. 48. The representatives asked the Court not to take into consideration said observations of the State because the brief “was time-barred,” and following an 38 Mexican Official Norm NOM-046-SSA2-2005 “Domestic Violence, Sexual Violence, and Violence against Women. Criteria for Prevention and Attention”; published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on April 16, 2009. Cf. Record of receipt of documents, supra note 37, numeral 22. 39 Cf. Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Chitay Nech et al, supra note 18, para. 56, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas , supra note 18, para. 65. 40 Following an extension granted by the Court, the State forwarded its observations on Mrs. Eugenio Manuel’s affidavit (Cf. case file on the merits, tome IV, folio 1580).