other cases, the Court admits those documents that are presented in a timely fashion (Article 57 of the Rules)11 by the parties and by the Commission, the admissibility of which was neither opposed nor objected to, nor was their authenticity questioned.12 B. Admissibility of the testimonial and expert evidence 25. The Court deems it pertinent to admit the statements made before a notary public13 and in public proceedings14 insofar as they meet the object that was defined in Order of the President, which ordered receiving them and defined the purpose of this case.15 VI FACTS 26. In view of the State’s recognition of responsibility, the Court will now present the facts of the case developed in the factual framework of the Merits Report, the complementary information presented by the representative and by the victims and the evidence found in the record of the case. To do so, it will refer to: (A) the death of Cristina Brítez Arce and (B) the proceedings in this case. A. The death of Cristina Brítez Arce 27. Cristina Brítez Arce was a Paraguayan woman who was a seamstress. She was 38 years old and more than 40 weeks pregnant at the time of her death.16 She was the mother of Ezequiel Martín Avaro and Vanina Verónica Avaro, then 15 and 12 years of age, respectively. 28. Ms. Brítez Arce had her first prenatal appointment on November 25, 1991 at the Argentine League against Tuberculosis, where she related her history of arterial hypertension.17 She next had an appointment on December 1, 1991 when she was 15 weeks pregnant, at which time a new appointment in four weeks was suggested. On March 10, 1992, she went for the first time to the Sardá Hospital, where she informed on her history of arterial hypertension.18 The following day, in the same hospital, an obstetric ultrasound scan was performed that indicated that the biparietal diameter of the fetus was compatible with 31 weeks and the femur compatible with 30 11 Documentary evidence may be presented, in general and in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules, together with the briefs of submission of the case, of pleadings and motions or the answering brief. Evidence presented outside these procedural moments is not admissible, save for the exceptions established in the aforementioned article (force majeure or serious impediment) or if it is a supervening event; in other words, that it occurred after the procedural moments indicated. Cf. Article 57 of the Rules; see, also, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140 and Case of Leguizamón Zaván et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 28. 12 13 The expert opinion of Regina Tamés Noriega, proposed by the Commission. 14 The statements of Ezequiel Martín Avaro and Vanina Verónica Avaro, son and daughter of Cristina Brítez Arce. 15 The object of the statements may be found in the Order of the President of the Court of February 17, 2022. Cf. Case of Brítez Arce et al. v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of March 4, 2022. 16 The documents in the record of the case are not in agreement regarding the number of weeks of pregnancy of Ms. Brítez Arce at the moment of her death, but they do agree that it was more than 40. Cf. Report of the expert Dr. E.B. of July 24, 2000 (evidence file, ff. 368 - 369). 17 Cf. Expert opinion of Drs. P.P., R.G., A.L. and J.V. of May 7, 1997 (evidence file, f. 11). According to the expert opinion of the Catholic University of Córdoba, on the date of this consultation there was no indication of the height or weight of Ms. Brítez Arce, but it did note “Arterial hypertension during the previous pregnancy.” Expert opinion of the Catholic University of Córdoba of March 13, 1998 (evidence file, f. 126). 18 9