detentions of Messrs. Fernández Prieto and Tumbeiro, as well as its responsibility in relation to the right to equality before the law and the prohibition of discrimination in the case of Mr. Tumbeiro. The Court will also rule on the corresponding reparations. 22. Nevertheless, on this occasion, the Court does not find it necessary to open up the discussion on all the points that were the purpose of the litigation, because some legal claims argued in this case, such as the violation of the judicial guarantees and judicial protection of Messrs. Fernández Prieto and Tumbeiro, were expressly recognized by the State in its acknowledgement of international responsibility, and have been extensively developed in the Inter-American Court’s case law. V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 23. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives and the State, as well as those requested by the Court or its President as helpful evidence and, as in other cases, it admits them in the understanding that they were presented at the appropriate procedural moment (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure)21 and their admissibility was not contested or refuted. B. Admissibility of the testimonial and expert evidence 24. This Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements provided by affidavit 22 and during the public hearing23 insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them and the purpose of this case. VI FACTS 25. This case relates to the illegal and arbitrary detention of Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto and Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro, in 1992 and 1998, respectively. The Court will describe the facts acknowledged by the State in the following order: (a) context of detentions without a court order or a situation of flagrante delicto in Argentina; (b) detention and criminal proceedings against Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto; (c) detention and criminal proceedings against Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro, and (d) applicable laws. A. Context of detentions without a court order or a situation of flagrante delicto in Argentina 26. In its acknowledgement of international responsibility, signed on March 4, 2020, the State accepted all the conclusions set out by the Commission in its Merits Report, which include In general, the documentary evidence may be submitted according to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure together with the brief submitting the case, the brief with pleadings and motions, or the answering brief, as applicable, and evidence forwarded outside these procedural occasions is not admissible, safe for the exceptions established in the said Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (namely, force majeure and grave impediment) or if it relates to a supervening fact; that is, one that occurred after the said procedural moments. 21 Cf. Expert opinion of Juan Pablo Gomara and statements of Fátima Adriana Castro and Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro. 22 Cf. Opinions of expert witnesses Sofía Tiscornia and Hernán Víctor Gullco provided during the public hearing held in this case. 23 9