17 evidence, the Court may admit such evidence, provided that the opposing parties are guaranteed the right of defense. 33. During the course of the public hearing, the representatives submitted certain documentation in relation to the controversies in this case.34 Since such documentation was considered pertinent and useful to determine the facts of this case and their possible consequences, pursuant to article 47 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court decides to admit it. 34. Likewise, also during the course of the public hearing, expert witness Coronado Franco and expert witness Gutiérrez Hernández submitted their opinions in writing.35 For their part, expert witness Gutiérrez Hernández submitted documents supporting her expert opinion. For their part, expert witnesses Tramsen and Gutiérrez Hernández submitted PowerPoint presentations supporting the presentations made during the hearing.36 Such documents were distributed to the parties. The Tribunal admits such documents insofar as they refer to the purpose duly defined, because they are complementary and are framed within the parameters of time and form of the purpose for which they were requested. 35. On the other hand, both the State and the representatives submitted documents together with their final written arguments. Some of them were addressed to answer the questions made by the Tribunal as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. 10), so they are included in the body of evidence, as well as the observations made by the parties thereto. In turn, the representatives submitted, among other documents, vouchers of expenses incurred after the filing of briefs of pleadings and motions. Such evidence was submitted to the State’s observations and its admission was not rejected; therefore, it is included in the file. 36. The representatives indicated that one of the exhibits submitted by the State to its final written pleadings, related to an “identification card” of doctors Christian Tramsen and Morris Tidball Binz, is submitted “untimely.” In this respect, the Court admits such evidence upon considering it is useful and shall assess it together with the rest of the body of evidence, particularly when assessing the different allegations made by the State in relation to Mr. Tramsen’s expert opinion. 3. Evaluation of depositions by the alleged victims, witness and expert witness evidence 37. As to the statements made by the alleged victims, the testimonies and expert opinions offered at the public hearing and by means of affidavits, the Court deems they are relevant to the extent they relate to the purpose defined by the President of the Tribunal in the Order requiring them (supra para. 8) and together with the other evidence of the body of evidence, taking into account the observations made by the parties.37 34 There are several medical certificates mentioned in the cross-examination made by the representatives of the alleged victims to expert witness Christian Tramsen, which were transmitted to the parties by means of the minutes on document reception corresponding to the public hearing held on August 26 and 27, 2010. 35 Cf. Minutes on document reception of August 27, 2010 corresponding to the public hearing held in this case (record of merits, volume IV; folios 1667 and 1668). 36 37 Cf. Minutes on document reception of August 27, 2010, supra note 35, folios 1667 and 1668. Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C. Nº 33, para. 43; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 50; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 47.