12 (cf. information comparing the exchange rate (new soles per United States dollar, Appendix XXVII). 42. The State objected to the inclusion of the appendices filed by the victim using arguments that concerned admissibility and probative value. In the case of the admissibility arguments, it alleged that the appendices to the victim’s reparations brief were not presented within the time limit established by the Court, which had expired on January 31, 1998; this, it argued, "[would] vitiate their merit or value as evidence. " 43. The Court notes that its practice has always been to allow the initial submission of applications to be done by fax or telex (Article 26 of the Rules of Procedure), with the original documents and their appendices submitted within a reasonable time period thereafter. The Court decides what constitutes a reasonable time period on a case-by-case basis (Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 25, 1996. Series C No. 23, para. 34). 44. The victim submitted the appendices six days after the body of the brief, and five days after the specified deadline. In keeping with the spirit and purpose of the American Convention, this five-day delay could not possibly invalidate information pertinent to determining what the reparations should be, especially when one considers that particular care was taken to ensure procedural balance. At the time the extension was granted on March 31, 1998, the President specified that the victim and the Commission had two months and 25 calendar days in which to present their arguments and evidence, and granted the State the same amount of time to present its observations and evidence. 45. Thus, Peru had the same amount of time to conduct a study and prepare its arguments on the reparations briefs and their appendices. Hence, the argument made by the State that the delay in filing the appendices to the victim’s brief was prejudicial to the State is inadmissible. 46. Given the foregoing, the Court is admitting the appendices to the victim’s reparations brief. 47. The State also questioned the evidentiary value of some of the receipts presented by the victim, which did not show the names and surnames of the persons who incurred the respective expenses. Here, Perú alluded specifically to appendices XV, XVI, XVIII, XIX (slips no. 09119, 4275, 09402 and 117748), XX, XXI, XXX, XXXII, XXXIII and the chart contained in appendix XXVIII. 48. When it examined the appendices being contested, the Court found that in some cases the victim had presented charts of estimated costs (cf. appendices XV, XVI, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXX, XXXII and XXXIII), apparently prepared as a reference aid. In some cases, the figures given were supported by receipts and vouchers; in other cases the amounts shown were described by the victim herself as “estimates” and approximate figures for certain undocumented outlays. Moreover, the charts submitted as Appendix XXVIII are an organized layout of representations alleged to have been made by victim’s counsel before Peruvian and international authorities, including the organs of the inter-American system. 49. The Court finds that the charts in question do not constitute evidence. They are documents that illustrate the victim’s claims and supplement the reparations