20 Gutman’s testimony cannot be considered in isolation, but must be assessed together with all the evidence in the proceedings because he is an alleged victim and has a direct interest in the case.20 73. In relation to the evidence forwarded by the representatives as an appendix to their brief with arguments on the preliminary objections filed by the State, the Court observes that this was not contested by the parties and that it is pertinent to decide this case, so the Court admits it and will assess it together with the body of evidence, bearing in mind the observations made by the State in its brief of November 27, 2007. 74. As regards the brief forwarded by the State on November 27, 2007, the Court observes that, in this brief, Mexico: (a) submitted additional observations on the written arguments of the Inter-American Commission and of the representatives on the preliminary objections; (b) presented observations on the supervening information offered by the alleged victim; and (c) offered supervening information on the constitutional reform on electoral matters published in the official gazette on November 13, 2007 (supra para. 7). In this regard, the Court will only consider the part of that brief referring to the evidence and information provided on the constitutional reform of November 13, 2007, and the observations made by the State on the evidence forwarded by the representatives on October 18, 2007. Regarding the State’s additional observations on the preliminary objections, the Court notes that submission of such observations is not provided for in the Rules of Procedure, nor was it requested by the President, so that the Court will not consider these observations. Furthermore, regarding the brief of January 18, 2008, in which the State forwarded observations on the brief presented by the Inter-American Commission concerning the constitutional reform on electoral matters, the Court observes that, although this was not requested by the President, and its presentation is not provided for in the Court’s Rules of Procedure, its only purpose was to offer a clarification, and therefore the Court admits it. Lastly, regarding the brief forwarded by the representatives on July 19, 2008, pursuant to Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court admits it and will assess it together with the body of evidence, bearing in mind the State’s observations. 75. Regarding the documents forwarded by the alleged victim with the brief on final arguments concerning the procedural expenses and costs related to the public hearing (supra para. 11), the Court has indicated that “the claims of the victims or their representatives with regard to costs and expenses, and the evidence that they provide, must be submitted to the Court at the first procedural moment granted to them; that is in the brief with pleas and motions, without prejudice to these claims being updated subsequently, according to the new costs and expenses incurred as a result of the proceedings before the Court.”21 Based on the above, the Court admits these documents. Regarding the other documents provided, the Court observes that they have not been contested and, if appropriate, will assess them with the body of evidence. 76. Now that it has examined the probative elements in the case file, the Court will analyze the alleged violations of the American Convention, considering the proven facts and the pertinent legal arguments of the parties 20 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 19, para. 33; and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Court”), supra note 19, para. 20. 21 Cf. Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C No. 108, para. 22; Case of Kimel, supra note 4, para. 34; and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Court”), supra note 19, para. 258.