incompatible with the obligation of procedural cooperation and the principle of good faith that governs the international proceedings. Nevertheless, the Court deems that the fact that the questions of the other party are not answered does not affect a statement’s admissibility; rather, it is a factor that, depending on the implications of a declarant’s silences, could have an impact on the probative force of a statement or an expert opinion, and this is assessed when the merits of the case are examined.79 116. The State challenged the admissibility of the expert opinion delivered by Christof Heyns in the form of an affidavit, proposed by the Inter-American Commission, because on the final day prior to expiration of the deadline for submitting final written arguments, the State had not yet received the Spanish translation of the text. This expert opinion had been submitted “as an amicus curiae” and “the expert witness [had not responded] to the questions asked by the Peruvian State in its letter of February 3, 2014”. 117. The Court replies that the Registrar had sent the Commission a note on February 7, 2014, forwarding the questions asked of expert witness Christof Heyns. The Commission forwarded the opinion of the expert witness on February 14, 2014. The Court agrees that this statement was in English, and the Registrar therefore sent a note on February 19, 2014, asking the Commission to “send the Spanish translation of this expert statement at the earliest opportunity”. The Court holds that, at the time this judgment is being delivered, the Commission has not yet sent the Spanish translation of the expert statement, even though the Court had asked the Commission to do so without delay. 118. The State was therefore unable to offer any useful observations in its final written arguments. The Court finds, consequently, that it would be out of order to admit the statement of expert witness Christof Heyns. 119. The State maintained that the submission of the statement by José Pablo Baraybar Do Carmo was time-barred and asked that it not be taken into account by the Court in its analysis of this dispute. 120. The Court would note that on January 30, 2014, the representatives had said that they were submitting the “Statement by José Pablo Baraybar Do Carmo, delivered before the public attestor Eduardo Laos de Lama on January 30, 2014”. The Registrar reported that the representatives had sent an unsigned document in Word format entitled “STATEMENT GIVEN BEFORE PUBLIC ATTESTOR JOSE PABLO BARAYBAR DO CARMO". It therefore did not comply with the formalities of a publicly attested statement, nor did it bear the signature that would qualify it as a sworn statement. The next day, January 31, 2014, the representatives reported that the document had been sent in error and therefore attached the relevant statement, in pdf format, delivered before a public attestor. 121. The Court will not admit the statement by José Pablo Baraybar Do Carmo, as it was time-barred. B.3 Admission of videos Cf. Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244, para. 33, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (the Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 71. 79