regard to enforced disappearances, and the alleged situation of impunity that reigns in the Province of Chubut. c) Sofía Tiscornia, Anthropologist and Doctor of Philosophy and Letters with a concentration in Social Anthropology. Expert witness statement ordered ex officio by the Tribunal. Addressed alleged police abuse of low-income young people that took place in the Province of Chubut, as well as the alleged lack of investigation and punishment of those responsible for the violations and the alleged lack of access to justice in this regard. B. Admission of the evidence. 41. In this case, as in others, the Court accepts the probative value of the documents presented by the parties at the proper procedural moment that were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned. 20 The documents that the Tribunal requested as evidence to facilitate adjudication (supra paras. 10 and 13) are incorporated into the body of evidence under Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure, when and if they are presented within the period established to do so. In this regard, the State has not submitted certain documentation requested by the Court.21 Consequently, as it has done in other cases, the Court may consider facts alleged by the Commission and complemented by the representatives as established when those allegations could only be refuted with evidence that the State should have submitted and did not. 22 42. As far as the “[m]edia documents” presented by the parties, the Court finds, as it has on multiple occasions, that they can be admitted when they contain public and widely-known facts or statements from State officials, or when they corroborate certain aspects of the case. 23 Therefore, in this case, the Court will consider those documents that are complete or that at least allow for the confirmation of their source and date of publication. 24 43. The Tribunal admits the documentation issued by the representatives in their brief of pleadings and motions that form part of the file on the provisional measures ordered in the matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. regarding Argentina (supra para. 5) and of the case file on precautionary measures before the Inter-American Commission on the same matter. The Court admits only those documents that were duly individualized and identified,25 as long as they refer to facts alleged in this contentious case that form part 20 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140; Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 17, para. 22, and Case of Mejía Idrovo V. Ecuador, supra note 17, para. 38. The Court did not admit the additional report of Mrs. Nora Cortiñas and the report of the Grupo Pro Derechos de los Niños [Group Pro Children’s Rights] submitted by the representatives during their written final arguments because they were not requested by the Court. Moreover, the Court does not admit the documents presented by the State in its written final arguments relative to the alleged expenditures already made in favor of Mrs. Millacura Llaipén and other family members of Iván Eladio Torres, as they were time barred. 21 The State did not present the copy of the daily police record of the First Police Station of Comodoro Rivadavia city, Province of Chubut, corresponding to October 3, 2003. 22 Cf. Radilla Pacheco V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 92, and Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 17, para. 24. 23 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 21, para. 146; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú, supra note 14, para. 40, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 30. 24 Cf. Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 23, para. 77; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 14, para. 27, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón V. Venezuela, supra note 24, para. 30. 25 In the Secretariat's note of October 19, 2010, the representatives were told that, “in relation to the case files ‘CIDH Case of No 12.533 and MC 9/05,’ and the case file ‘Corte IDH Millacura Llaipén, María Leontina y otros.-Medidas Provisionales-Argentina,’ they were asked to […] submit only those documents cited in the 14