16 35. During the public hearing (supra para. 11), the State presented copies of several documents,26 which were distributed to the representatives and the Commission who were able to present their observations. Considering them useful for deciding this case, the Court admits the documents provided by the State under Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure as evidence of facts that occurred subsequent to the answer to the application and will consider, where pertinent, the information therein, taking into account the entire body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 36. Lastly, the Commission forwarded several documents as evidence, which had been requested by the Court under the provisions of Article 58 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, these documents are also incorporated and they will be assessed, as pertinent, taking into account the entire body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 37. With regard to the documents forwarded by the representatives concerning costs and expenses, the Court will only consider those submitted with the final written arguments that refer to new costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before this Court; in other words, those incurred following the submission of the pleadings and motions brief. 3. Admission of the testimony of the victims and the expert opinions 38. The Court also finds it pertinent to admit the testimony and expert opinions provided by the alleged victims and the expert witnesses during the public hearing and in sworn statements, to the extent they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the Order requiring them (supra para. 9) and the purpose of this case. They will be assessed in the corresponding chapter, together with the other elements of the body of evidence. Pursuant to this Court’s case law, the statements made by the alleged victims cannot be assessed alone; but rather they will be examined together with all the evidence in the proceedings, because they are useful insofar as they can provide more information on the alleged violations and their consequences.27 39. During the public hearing (supra para. 11), expert witness Ricardo Alberto Iglesias Herrera presented his expert opinion in writing. A copy of the document was given to the parties when the hearing ended. In addition, on June 8, 2011, the representatives forwarded a written expansion of the expert opinion of expert witness María Sol Yáñez de la Cruz, which had been requested by the Court during the said hearing. Consequently, the parties were able to submit their observations on these documents. Considering them useful for deciding this case, the Court also incorporates them and they will be assessed, as pertinent, taking into account the entire body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 26 See “Record of receipt of documents,” which confirms the documents that were presented by the State. Cf. Merits file, volume II, folios 864 to 865. 27 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Mejía Idrovo, supra note 19, para. 42, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 19, para. 34.