37 Mr. Vargas Rohrmoser to make good on the penalty imposed on the newspaper “La Nación” in the November 12, 1999 judgment; c) the State had full knowledge of the April 3, 2001 decision from the time it was delivered by one of its own courts; and d) Costa Rica cannot request that the April 3, 2001 decision be precluded as that decision does not alter the facts; instead, it confirms them. Pleadings of the alleged victims’ representatives 90. Concerning the preliminary objection raised by the State alleging that a court order involving Mr. Vargas Rohrmoser was introduced belatedly and indeed not tangibly presented at all, the alleged victims’ representatives petitioned the Court to reject each and every argument, based on the following reasoning: a) the April 3, 2001 court decision ordered enforcement of the judgment that found Mr. Herrera Ulloa and the “La Nación” newspaper jointly and severally liable, and dismissed the “petition seeking reversal and concomitant nullification” filed by the alleged victims against the court order for execution of judgment issued on February 21 of that year. The important thing is to have presented the February order being challenged, which became final with the order of April 3, 2001; b) the threat to Mr. Vargas Rohrmoser’s freedom “does not originate” with the April 3, 2001 decision; it stems from that provision of the Penal Code that describes the crime of contempt; c) there is no arguing the existence of the April 3, 2001 ruling, irrespective of what was forwarded to the Court as an annex to the Commission’s application. The State attempted to deny the very existence and relevance of a court decision that it expressly included in its brief of November 30, 2001; and d) all domestic remedies were pursued and exhausted in the case of Mr. Vargas Rohrmoser, which is why the State’s objection has no valid foundation in the law. Considerations of the Court 91. As for the alleged belated introduction of the April 3, 2001 order, the Court finds that while it was indeed a court action that occurred after the petitioners had filed their petition with the Commission on March 1, 2001 ((supra para. 6), it is still part of the body of evidence in the present case (supra para. 68) and was introduced in the course of the proceedings with the inter-American system for the protection of human rights. On May 10, 2001, when provisional measures on Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa’s behalf were requested, a copy of that court order was presented. It should be recalled that the body of evidence in a case is unique and indivisible and is composed of the evidence submitted during all stages of the proceeding, 31 so the 31 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack-Chang, supra note 7, para. 129; Case of Bulacio, supra note 7, para. 68; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 20, para. 60.