that, in its answering brief, the State had not contradicted or contested the representatives’ arguments in this regard; thus, according to the representatives, Article 40(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure should be applied. 73. The Court considers the representatives’ request inadmissible. First, Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure authorizes the Court to request the parties to provide any explanation “that, in the Court’s opinion, may be useful,” 74 and this is not limited only to probative procedures or to explanations related to them, as the representatives indicate. In addition, according to Article 41(3) of its Rules of Procedure, “the Court may” consider as accepted those arguments that have not been contested by the State in its answering brief, 75 without this signifying that it will automatically consider them accepted in all the cases in which the State does not oppose this, without making an assessment of the specific circumstances of the case and the existing body of evidence. The silence of the defendant or its evasive or ambiguous answer may be interpreted as acceptance of the facts in the application, while this is not contradicted during the proceedings or because the Court finds that the contrary has been proved. Nevertheless, the Court may try to overcome these procedural difficulties, ordering ex officio the reception of certain evidence, without this entailing the waiver of its discretionary powers to assess the State’s silence or inertia, or its obligation to assess all the facts. 76 Consequently, the information submitted by the State on the alleged destruction or alteration of documents will be assessed by the Court, taking into account the body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 74. Following the public hearing, at the Court’s request during this hearing, expert witness Federico Andreu Guzmán submitted a “written summary” of the expert opinion he presented during the said hearing, which was forwarded to the parties. The Court admits this document to the extent that it is in keeping with the purpose duly defined by its President for this expert opinion (supra paras. 9 and 65), because it finds it useful for this case, it was not contested, and its authenticity and veracity were not disputed. 75. In a note of June 24, 2011, the parties were informed of the decision of the President of the Court to reject the incorporation of the documentation presented by the State on June 1, 2011 (supra para. 10), consisting, inter alia, in the copy of a letter supposedly handwritten by Narciso González Medina and “the interview with Rafael González Laucer, brother of Mr. González.” The President considered that the time-barred presentation of evidence was not based on any of the exceptions established in Article 57(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. In an order of July 5, 2011, the Court ratified the President’s decision (supra para. 10). 76. Regarding the helpful evidence, the State did not submit all the information and documents required by the Court (supra paras. 11 and 12). In particular, the Dominican 74 Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure establishes: The Court may, at any stage of the proceedings: […] b. Request the Commission; the victims or alleged victims, or their representatives; the respondent State; and, if applicable, the petitioning State to submit any evidence that they may be able to provide or any explanation or statement that, in the Court’s opinion, may be useful. 75 Article 41(3) of the Court’s Rules regarding the presentation of the answering brief by the State, establishes that: The Court may consider those facts that have not been expressly denied and those claims that have not been expressly contested as accepted. 76 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, para. 138. 25