dated March 14 and 17, 2023, the parties and the Commission made the observations they deemed pertinent. 15. The Court recalls that, generally speaking and pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedures, the correct procedural moment for submitting documentary evidence is with the initial case documents and the pleadings and motions or answering briefs, as appropriate. 16. The Court notes that the documents provided by the representative along with his final written arguments were submitted at the request of the judges at the public hearing held in the instant case. Therefore, these documents are admissible according to Article 58(a) of the Rules of Procedure. The same applies in the case of Annexes 1 to 8, 10 to 13 and 15 submitted by the State with its final written arguments, which are also declared admissible. Finally, the Court notes that it did not request the documents contained in Annexes 9, 14 and 16 submitted by the State, the date of the documents is before that of the answering brief and, furthermore, the State has not explained the reason why they should be admitted, bearing in mind Article 57(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. Therefore, the documents in question are inadmissible because they were not submitted at the correct procedural moment. B. Admissibility of testimonial evidence 17. This Court deems it pertinent to admit the testimony of the alleged victim given in the public hearing, 11 inasmuch as it is consistent with the object established in the order issued by the President, and with the object of the instant case. 12 V FACTS 18. The Court will present the facts of the case, based on the factual framework established in the Merits Report and the body of evidence contained in the case file. It will also include the facts presented by the parties that make it possible to explain, clarify or reject the factual framework. The information will be presented in the following order: (A) attempted coup d’état and subsequent declaration of a state of emergency in the year 2000; (B) the arrest of Jorge Luis López Sosa; (C) the domestic administrative and judicial proceedings; and (D) the relevant regulatory framework. A. Attempted coup d’état and subsequent declaration of a state of emergency in 2000 19. On May 18, 2000, there was an attempted coup d’état in Paraguay, led by members of the Army’s First Corps and police working at National Police Headquarters and other police stations, which sought to depose the then President, Luis Ángel González Macchi. 13 In the early hours of the next day, the President issued Decree 8,772, in which he The alleged victim Jorge Luis López Sosa testified during the public hearing ordered by the Court. The President of the Court set forth the reasons why the Court wished to receive testimony in the order issued on December 14, 2022. Cf. Case of López Sosa v. Paraguay. Order of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of December 14, 2022. Available at: www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/lopez_sosa_14_12_2022.pdf. 13 Cf. IACHR, Third report on the situation of human rights in Paraguay, OEA/Ser./L/VII.110, March 9, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1606). https://www.cidh.oas.org/countryrep/paraguay01eng/toc.htm. 11 12 7