39. When presenting their brief on reparations (supra para. 11), the representatives of the victim and his next of kin (CEJIL) included 17 attachments containing 43 document as evidence6. In its brief on reparations (supra para. 10), the Commission endorsed the evidence submitted by CEJIL in its said brief. 40. The State included as evidence with its brief on reparations (supra paras. 12 and 13) two attachments corresponding to a copy of judicial file No. 14,222 of the Fifth Criminal Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Bolivia, and a partial copy of the legislative file on the draft law which defines the forced disappearance of persons as an offense7. 41. The State presented a brief (supra para. 15), to which it attached a copy of “the latest actions in the legal proceedings underway in [the] Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Bolivia, against those accused of committing various crimes against José Carlos Trujillo”8. 42. The representatives of the victim and his next of kin presented six attachments related to the information requested by the State as additional evidence (supra paras. 21 and 25)9. 43. As evidence to make a more informed decision (supra paras. 20, 21 and 26), the State presented a brief with nine attachments10. 44. Bolivia also forwarded constitutional judgment Nº 1190/01-R delivered by the Constitutional Court on November 12, 2001(supra para. 31), and two other documents11. 45. The representatives of the victim and his next of kin forwarded a copy of the press communiqué of the Public Relations Unit of the Constitutional Court of November 20, 2001 relating to judgment Nº 1190/01-R delivered by the Constitutional Court on November 12, 2001 (supra para. 32), and as additional evidence, it remitted seven documents contained in seven attachments concerning the questions that the Court had asked the State during the public hearing on reparations (supra paras. 20 and 32)12. B) TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE 6 cf. attachments 1 to 17 to the brief on reparations, presented by CEJIL on April 27, 2000 (folios 1 to 65 of the Reparations evidence file). 7 cf. attachments 1 and 2 to the brief on reparations presented by the State on April 27 and May 11, 2000 (folios 66 to 272 of the Reparations evidence file). 8 cf. attachment to the State’s brief of March 16, 2001 (folios 181 to 269 of Tome I of the Reparations file). 9 cf. attachments 1 to 6 to the briefs presented by CEJIL on October 29 and November 16, 2001 (folios 347 to 353 and 397 to 433 of Tome II of the Reparations file). 10 cf. attachments 1 to 9 to the brief presented by the State on October 30, 2001 (folios 273 to 1192 of the Reparations evidence file). 11 cf. folios 461 to 472 of Tome II of the Reparations file. 12 cf. folios 478, 479 and 492 to 572 of Tome II of the Reparations file.