4(j) 33, 4(l) 34, 4(r) 35, 7 36, 10 37, 11 38, 16 39, 18 40, 31 41, 32 42, 37 43 and 39 44 forwarded by them in their motions and pleadings brief, therefore said documents should not be admitted. In this regard, the Court recalls that the representatives of the alleged victims forwarded their motions and pleadings brief on June 19, 2020, and its annexes on July 6 and 10, 2020. Subsequently, by letter dated August 25, 2020, after conducting an examination of said annexes, the Secretariat noted that the annexes 7, 10, 16, 18, 31, 32, 37 y 39, had not been presented, and annex 4, in its paragraphs 4(b), 4(e), 4(f), 4(g), 4(j), 4(l), 4(r) were faulty, so they were given a deadline until August 27, 2020, for the presentation of said documents. 33. The representatives forwarded annexes 4(b), 4(e), 4(f), 4(g), 4(j), 4(l), 4(r), 7, 10, 16, 18, 31, 32, 37 and 39 on August 28, 2020. As a result, the State, in a communication dated September 4, 2020, requested that the attachments forwarded by the representatives be taken as not presented, because they were sent outside the time limit. It also informed the Court that annex 11 of the motions and pleadings brief was not made known to the State, for which reason it asked the Court to require the representatives to send said annex, and that as soon as it was received, the calculation of the term for the presentation of the answering brief could begin. Given these requests, the Secretariat informed the State that the admissibility of the representatives' attachments would be resolved at the appropriate procedural moment, and informed it that, with respect to attachment 11, although it was identified by the representatives in their motions and pleadings brief, it had not been provided as an annex, so it was not appropriate to determine the calculation of a new term for the submission of the answer. 34. Based on the foregoing, the representatives, in a communication dated September 11, 2020, stated that all the attachments referred to in their motions and pleadings brief had been forwarded on July 6, 2020 in due time and form, therefore they requested their 33 Communication from the Attorney General of October 18, 2010, addressed to El Universo newspaper to request information on an article. 34 Email sent by Emilio Palacio Urrutia rejecting a “release” made by Mr Palacio Urrutia. 35 Program ‘Enlace Sabatino’ 387 of August 23, 2014, 4 Minute 6 – 51. Ruling of Fifteenth Court of Criminal Guarantees of Guayas of July 1, 2011. Acceptance of position by Temporary Judge Mónica Encalada and decision on setting hearing and admission of evidence. 36 Request for brief of evidence by Emilio Palacio Urrutia, Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lapentti, Cesar Enrique Pérez Barriga, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga and request for annulment of the El Universo Company proceedings. 37 38 Notary proceedings on the content of the first instance judgment by the Thirty-eighth Notarial Office of Guayaquil. Ruling of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Provincial Court of Justice of Guayas District, September 14, 2011, on setting the appeal hearing and its respective notification of September 15, 2011. 39 40 Personnel claim of the National Personnel Directorate No. 2412-UARHEGV of November 05, 2009, Personnel claim of the National Personnel Directorate No. 677-DNP of February 26, 2004, and Personnel claim of the Provincial Directorate of Guayas, No. 4390-UARG-KZF of August 16, 2011. 41 Expert opinions presented to the National Court, that criticized the judgment of the Temporary Judge Juan Paredes. 42 Victims register in the Automated System of Ecuadorian Legal Proceedings. Ruling Second Criminal Chamber of the National Court, by ruling of December 27, 2011, denied the Factual Legal Remedy of Emilio Palacio. 43 44 Video transmission “informativo sobre acontecimientos de interés general de la ciudadanía caso Diario EL UNIVERSO”, (“report on the events of general interest to the public in the Case of EL UNIVERSO newspaper”) July 2011. 14