Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe was confined, were subject. CEJIL did not describe specific facts in relation to Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe’s detention conditions, or explain in its arguments how the general conditions of this prison that it described had affected the presumed victim. 47. In its Merits Report, the Commission did not refer to the way in which the initial arrests of the presumed victims were made and there is no reference to their detention conditions in the prisons. Consequently, it cannot be considered that the supposed acts of violence in the initial arrest of the presumed victims and the alleged raids on the communities during their detention explain, clarify or reject the facts presented in the Merits Report; rather they introduce new elements. Therefore, they do not form part of the factual framework of this case. C) Time-barred arguments 48. The Court has verified that, in their final arguments and observations, as well as in subsequent briefs, the Commission and the parties presented new arguments on the alleged violations of Articles 2, 9, 8(2)(f) and 24 of the Convention.43 Since their presentation was timebarred, the Court will not rule on them.44 V – EVIDENCE 49. As established in Articles 50, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure and in keeping with its consistent case law concerning evidence and its assessment,45 the Court will examine and assess the documentary evidence forwarded by the parties and the Commission on different procedural occasions, the statements of the presumed victims and witnesses made during the public hearing before the Court, by affidavit or by a written statement, the expert opinions provided at the said hearing or by affidavit or by a written statement, together with the helpful evidence requested by the Court and by its President (supra paras. 15 and 16), and the documents obtained and incorporated by the Court ex officio. The Court will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework when making its assessment.46 43 In its final written arguments, the FIDH introduced a new argument on the presumed violation of the principle of legality in relation to the supposed application of a norm on the anonymity of witnesses even though this was not in force at the time of the events for which the presumed victims were tried. Also, following the presentation of its final arguments, the FIDH forwarded a new argument relating to the fact that “the decision taken by the Public Prosecution Service to conceal the identity of a witness cannot be appealed (merits file, tome V, folio 2247). In their final arguments, the Commission and CEJIL presented, for the first time, arguments on the alleged violation of the principle of legality owing to the imposing of the ancillary penalties established in article 9 of the Chilean Constitution (merits file, tome IV, folios 1937 and 1938 and tome V, folios 2092 and 2093). In its final written arguments, the FIDH asked the Court “to take into account, in particular in relation to the guarantees of non-repetition, that discriminatory criminal prosecution by the application of the Counterterrorism Act to the Mapuche continues [in force]” in order to take legal action against social protests” and made an analysis of the years from 2005 to 2013. Regarding the alleged failure to comply with the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions in relation to the right of the defense to examine witnesses (Article 8(2)(f) of the Convention), the FIDH affirmed this violation in its motions and arguments brief, but it was only in its final arguments that it included specific substantiation in this regard. 44 Cf. Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 280, and Case of J. v. Peru, para. 282. 45 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 to 76, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 30, 2014. Series C No. 276, para. 23. 46 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, para. 76, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 23. 17