27 62. In accordance with Article 44(3) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court admits the decision changing the detention order for conditional appearance in file No. 53103-4JPT issued on July 8, 2004, by the Fourth Criminal Court Specializing in Crimes of Terrorism, and the brief requesting the change of the detention order for one of (appearance) filed before the Fourth Criminal Court Specializing in Crimes of Terrorism in file No. 531-03 on July 6, 2004, by the alleged victim’s defense lawyer, forwarded by the State on July 8, 2004 (supra para. 30 and 53), because this evidence relates to supervening events, and was not contested or opposed, and its authenticity was not questioned. 63. The Court considers that the documents presented by the witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission, Álvaro Eduardo Vidal Rivadeneyra; by the expert witness proposed by the alleged victim’s representatives, Manuel Pérez González; by the State, and by the alleged victim’s representatives on July 2, 2004, during the public hearing on merits and possible reparations and costs (supra paras. 28, 29 and 52), and those presented by the Inter-American Commission, the alleged victim’s representatives and the State in their final written arguments (supra paras. 31 and 54), which were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned, are useful for deciding the instant case, so the Court adds them to the body of evidence. 64. The Inter-American Commission referred to appendix 14 to the brief with final written arguments presented by the State, which consists of a report prepared by Héctor Faúndez Ledesma (supra para. 32). The Commission considered that this document “is an expert report on aspects of law that was not submitted opportunely by the State,” and stated that “even though this document has not been presented in this case as an expert report, the Commission considers it pertinent to put on record that it contested the document.” The State indicated that “it did not intend the report to be considered an expert report, but merely the report of an adviser [and, ...] in the instant case, it had not even presented what Professor Faúndez had said as a report, but had only cited an extract of what he had stated on another occasion”; consequently, it considered “the observation made by the Commission made no sense and lacked justification”; hence, it requested that the objection be rejected (supra para. 38). 65. The report in question, presented as an appendix of the State’s final arguments (supra para. 31), was contested by the Commission, because it had not been produced at the corresponding procedural opportunity (supra para. 32). This Court admits it and assesses it in the body of evidence, using the rules of sound criticism, and also bearing mind the said objection. 66. In accordance with Article 44(3) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court admits the decision on the objection to the nature of the trial, file No. 531-03, issued by the Fourth Criminal Court Specializing in Crimes of Terrorism on August 10, 2004, and the appeal against the decision on the objection to the nature of the trial, filed by the alleged victim’s defense lawyer on September 1, 2004, documents forward to this Court by the alleged victim’s representatives on September 9, 2004 (supra paras. 34 and 35), because this evidence relates to supervening events, and was not contested or opposed, and its authenticity was not questioned. 67. In accordance with Article 44(3) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court admits official communication No. 531-03-4ºJPT-CSG addressed by the Fourth Criminal Trial Judge Specializing in Crimes of Terrorism to the Executive Secretary of the National