12 present information on the petition by the date indicated by the Commission, the rule of the exhaustion of domestic remedies corresponds not only to the State, but also the Commission has the responsibility to verify whether the domestic remedies have been filed and exhausted; thus, it cannot immediately apply paragraph 3 of Article 31 [of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure], transferring the burden of proof to the State.”24 31. The Court considers that the State failed to provide any observations on the requirements for the admissibility of the petition, and this was indicated in the Admissibility Report of July 22, 2011. Following the said report, the State presented two briefs (December 2011 and January 2013); however, the two briefs were sent after the Admissibility Report had been adopted. In this regard, the Court’s consistent case law has established that the said objection must be filed during the admissibility stage before the Commission because, if it is not, it is considered that the State has tacitly waived it rights to file this objection.25 Consequently, the Court notes that the objection of exhaustion of domestic remedies was presented after the Admissibility Report had been issued, so that it was time-barred. Therefore this objection is rejected. V. EVIDENCE A) Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 32. The Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 3 to 5). In addition, the Court received the affidavits of: presumed victims Ananí Hernández, Jaime Nestares Phelps, María Isabel Arriaga, Larisa Patiño, Peter Bottome and Soraya Castellano; witnesses Tinedo Guía, Jhenny Eiselín Chirinos Contreras, Pedro Beomon Torres, León Hernández, Erika Corrales and Nelson Bustamente; the deponent for information purposes, Ana María Hernández Vallén, and the expert witnesses Alfredo Morles Hernández, Ángel Alayón, Francisco Rubio Llorente and André Ramos Tavares. Regarding the evidence provided during the public hearing, the Court received the statements of presumed victim Marcel Granier, witness José Leonardo Suárez, and expert witnesses Antonio Pasquali, Heli Rafel Romero Graterol, Domingo García Belaunde and Eduardo Cifuentes Muñoz.26 B) Admission of the evidence B.1 Admission of the documentary evidence 33. The Court admits those documents submitted at the proper procedural opportunity by the parties and the Commission, the admissibility of which was neither contested or challenged.27 34. In the case of the newspaper articles presented by the parties and the Commission with their different briefs, this Court has considered that they may be assessed when the refer to wellknown public facts or declarations of State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to Cf. Communication of the State received on December 4, 2011, Annex 72 (evidence file, folios 3546 and 3547). As mentioned previously, both the State and the Commission referred to this brief of December 4, 2011, and to one supposedly presented by the State on November 9, 2012. However, the case file provided to this Court only contained the former. 24 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, para. 88, and Case of Brewer Carías v. Venezuela. Judgment of May 26, 2014. Series C. No 278, para. 57. 25 26 The purpose of these statement was established in the order of the President of the Court of April 14, 2014. 27 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 140, and Case of Cruz Sánchez v. Peru, para. 102.