- 15 and purpose of annex 3 of the State’s final arguments brief.” It underlined that “the procedurally acceptable content of that brief is exclusively as the State’s final arguments and, in no way, can be understood as a clarification or in the sense of modifying the scope and content of the opinion provided by the said expert witness during the hearing.” The Court notes that, in this annex, Peru “present[ed] its point of view with regard to the expert opinion of Professor Bingzhi Zhao,” owing to the difficulties of translating Chinese into Spanish, and the explanation of a legal system that differs from that of the States Parties to the Convention, because some concepts did not have an exact translation. This could make it difficult to understand the expert opinion; nevertheless, “the original sense of the information and ideas of the deponent were retained.” In this regard, the Court notes that, insofar as it was received on the date on which the time frame for the presentation of the final written arguments expired, it would consider this annex to be an expansion of the State’s arguments concerning the issues dealt with by expert witness Bingzhi Zhao during the public hearing. However, these arguments do not form part of the said expert opinion and do not possess the probative value of that opinion. 44. The admissibility of the remaining documents presented by the State with its final written arguments was not contested, and their authenticity and veracity were not questioned. Pursuant to Article 58(a) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court finds it in order to admit those documents, insofar as they may be useful to decide this case, help contextualize other evidence provided to the file, and explain some of the parties’ arguments. 45. Also, on November 17 and December 1, 2014, and also on April 10, 2015, the State presented the helpful information and documentation requested by the judges of the Court during the public hearing and by its President subsequently (supra para. 13). The parties and the Commission were able to present their observations on this information and documentation and its admissibility was not contested or its authenticity and veracity questioned. Pursuant to Article 58(a) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court finds it in order to admit these documents, insofar as they may be useful to decide this case. 46. The State opposed the admission of the additional costs requested by the representative in the “complementary motions and arguments brief” presented on February 9, 2014, as well as the requests for costs contained in the brief of August 30, 2013, addressed to the Inter-American Commission, which the representative included among the annexes to his motions and arguments brief. The State argued that any request for costs should be made in the motions and arguments brief, so that the additional costs contained in the two briefs should be rejected. The Court notes that the representative forwarded his motions and arguments brief on February 5, 2014, and sent a complementary brief on February 9, 2014, in which he included additional requests for costs and expenses (supra para. 7). The Court notes that the complementary brief was received within the time frame for the presentation of the motions and arguments brief in this case, which expired on February 9, 2014. Therefore, it finds that the latter brief should be considered an integral part of the first brief forwarded by the representative and considers admissible the requests for costs and expenses contained therein. Furthermore, with regard to the brief of August 30, 2013, sent with the annexes to the motions and arguments brief, the Court has verified that it forms part of the file of the processing of this case before the Commission, so that finding it inadmissible would be pointless. Nevertheless, the Court notes that, when determining costs and expenses, it will take into account the requests contained in the representative’s motions and arguments brief addressed to the Court (received in communications of February 5, 6 and 9, 2014) and not those included in the brief of August 30, 2013, addressed to the Commission, since the former constituted the appropriate procedural stage for its presentation to this Court in accordance with Article 40(2)(d) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. This does not preclude the possibility of indicating and providing the evidence of the costs and expenses incurred during the proceedings before the Court subsequently, as indicated infra.