common interveners, the Inter-American Defenders and SIPDH submitted annexes to their briefs of observations on the preliminary objections. 174 Also, the State, the Commission and the common interveners Factum Consorcio and SIPDH forwarded the documents requested by the Court as helpful evidence (supra paras. 11 and 15). 175 Finally, the Court received various documents submitted by the State and the common interveners Factum Consorcio together with their final written arguments, 176 and by SIPDH with its observations on the information submitted by the State as helpful evidence on September 27, 2017 177 and its observations on the annexes to the final written arguments of the parties. 178 B. Admission of the evidence B.1 Admission of the documentary evidence 137. The Court admits those documents submitted at the appropriate procedural opportunity by the parties and the Commission (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure), the admissibility of which was not challenged or disputed, and the authenticity of which was not questioned. 179 The Court also finds it pertinent to admit the statements rendered by affidavit, insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the order that required them and the purpose of this case. 180 In addition, the Court admits the documents submitted as helpful for information purposes proposed by the State: i) Daniel González Álvarez, ii) Edwin Jiménez González, and iii) Elías Carranza; i) expert witnesses proposed by the Commission: i) Alberto Bovino, and ii) Juan Pablo Gomara; j) expert witnesses proposed by SIPDH: iii) Walter Antillón; k) expert witnesses proposed by Adrián Martínez Blanco: iv) Giselle Chacón Araya; l) expert witnesses proposed by AIDEF: v) José Joaquín Ureña Chamberzar, and vi) Juan Gerardo Ugalde Lobo; and m) expert witnesses proposed by the State: vii) Carlos Alberto Beraldi. 174 Together with the brief of observations on the preliminary objections of April 8, 2016, AIDEF forwarded the Final Report with Recommendations of February 22, 2011, of the Ombudsman’s Office. On April 12, 2016, the common interveners SIPDH submitted together with their observations on the preliminary objections: i) the death certificate of Mr. Manfred Amrhein Pinto, and ii) the judgment of cassation within a civil action for damages related to the criminal proceedings of the petitioners of Group 1 (Manfred Amrhein and others). 175 The Commission and the parties presented helpful evidence on the following dates: i) the Commission, on February 15, 2017; the State, on February 15 and 22, September 27, 2017 and March 8, 2018; Factum Consorcio, on September 28, 2017; and SIPDH in a brief of December 19, 2017. The common intervenor SIPDH submitted: a) Notarial record of September 28, 2017 and b) decisions on the pretrial detention of Miguel Mora Calvo. The State indicated that the documents listed in the Notarial Record were not found in the documentation forwarded to this Court. In this regard, the Court finds that the documents submitted to the Court were the same as those forwarded to the parties. 176 With their final written arguments the common interveners Factum Consorcio submitted: i) official invoices for the professional fees of Mr. Adrián Martínez Blanco and Néstor Morera Víquez, together with electronic airline tickets for travel from Buenos Aires, Argentina to San José; ii) temporary residence document in Argentina of Mr. Adrián Martínez Blanco; and ii) Judgment of the Inter-American Court in the case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador. For its part, the State submitted the following documentation with its brief of final arguments: i) the seven briefs submitted to the Commission in the processing before it, which had not formed part of the file presented with the submission of the case, and ii) the Study on Appeals Regimes in Adversarial Criminal Procedure Systems in the Americas: Central Aspects, prepared by the Justice Studies Center of the Americas at the request of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 177 The common interveners SIPDH submitted charts on the Costa Rican legislation with their observations on the information presented by the State as helpful evidence on September 27, 2017. In this regard, the State objected to the aforementioned legislation charts or “statistics on appeals for cassation and review” considering that the subject matter contained therein does not form part of the object of the case. First, the Court considers that the State’s objection relates to the merits of the case and does not affect the admissibility of the documents submitted. Secondly, the Court notes that these legislation charts are strictly for reference and illustrative purposes and will therefore be considered as such. 178 SIPDH presented the transcript of the decisions on the motions for review related to the case of Miguel Mora. 179 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of 25 March 2017. Series C No. 334, para. 21. 180 The purpose of the statements are established in the Order of the President of the Court of July 12, 2017. http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/amrhein_12_07_17.pdf. 48