neither legal certainty nor procedural equality is affected, because the Court, the other parties and the Commission can find it immediately. 81 In the instant case, neither the parties nor the Commission opposed or made observations on the content and authenticity of such documents, with the exception of the representatives’ observations on the attachments to the final arguments in relation to some documents listed by the State (infra para. 136). Consequently, the said documents that were not opposed or the subject of observations are admitted. 116. Opinions provided to the Court in other cases. The Commission, in its brief submitting the case, asked for “the transfer of the pertinent parts of the expert opinion […] of Samuel Martínez […] in the case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic, and of Gabriela [Elena] Rodríguez Pizzaro in the case of Vélez Loor v. Panama.” In the Order of September 6, 2013 (supra para. 12), it was determined that the opinions of Mr. Martínez and Mrs. Rodríguez Pizarro would be “incorporated […] merely as documentary evidence, and for the Court to determine their admissibility […] at the opportune procedural moment.” 82 Regarding the former, which was provided by affidavit, the State argued that the opinion had “been relevant to the facts and/or acts involved” in the case of the Yean and Bosico Yean v. Dominican Republic, “which differed materially and procedurally” from the instant case. With regard to the latter, the State indicated its limited applicability to the case. The Court notes that the observations on the opinions of Samuel Martínez and Mrs. Rodríguez Pizarro refer to their probative value and not to their admissibility. Hence, the Court admits them as documentary evidence in this case. 117. Expert opinion provided by Julia Harrington Reddy. This expert opinion was presented by affidavit on October 1, 2013, in English. Under Article 28(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court considers that, since the Spanish version of the opinion was presented on October 21, 2013, within the 21-day period established to forward the originals or a complete set of attachments, this opinion is admissible. 118. Expert opinion provided by Fernando I. Ferrán Brú. Mr. Ferrán Brú, in his expert opinion sent on October 1, 2013, announced that he would present as annexes two books: “El Batey. Estudio socioeconómico de los bateyes del Consejo Estatal del Azúcar” by Frank Moya Pons, and “Pelo bueno pelo malo. Estudio Antropológico de los Salones de Belleza en la República Dominicana” by Gerald F. Murray and Marina Ortiz, and these were received on October 6, 2013; that is, four days after the time limit established for the presentation of the opinions. The Court considers that, since these books were presented within the 21day period established to forward the originals or a complete set of attachments, as established in Article 28(1) of the Rules of Procedure, they are admissible. 119. Documents attached to the expert opinions. With regard to the documents presented by the expert witnesses Juan Bautista Tavarez Gómez, 83 Bridget Wooding, and Cecilio 81 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 26, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, para. 59. 82 Regarding the expert opinion of Samuel Martínez, its purpose was “racial relations and discrimination against Haitians and their children in the Dominican Republic; the State’s policy in relation to the recognition of the rights to nationality and to education to members of these communities, and the impact of these policies on the full enjoyment of the rights of Haitians and Dominico-Haitians in the Dominican Republic” (Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic. Order of the President of the Court of January 31, 2005, first operative paragraph). That of Gabriela Elena Rodríguez Pizarro concerns “the basic guarantees that, according to international human rights standards, must govern any criminal or other type of proceedings that involve[ the determination of the immigration status of a person or that may result in a sanction as a result of this status” (Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, para. 73.3). 83 The Court considers it relevant to place on record, in relation to the documentation presented by expert witness Juan Bautista Tavarez Gómez, that the purpose established for his expert opinion was the “domestic legal 35