the State presented a “copy of the complete minutes” of the said meeting and a certification of CONARE dated July 10, 2012, which “show that, during the second meeting on February 21, 2001, in addition to the case of Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco, it examined other requests for refugee status and dealt with other administrative issues.” The Court points out that, regarding Mr. Pacheco Osco’s request, the content of the minutes is the same in both documents provided by the State, so that their authenticity and probative value are not affected. 57. Regarding a judgment of the Constitutional Court of Bolivia declaring that several provisions of Decree No. 24423 were unconstitutional, which was contested by the State, the Court admits it, owing precisely to the indication by the State that these provisions “are directly related to the instant case.” Indeed, the State itself referred to this decree in its arguments order to maintain that it had not failed to comply with its obligations under Article 2 of the Convention and even referred to this judgment as a defense argument on several occasions. 58. Regarding the documents that concern expenses incurred by the representatives of the presumed victims, the Court refers to the considerations in the section relating to the Victims’ Fund in the chapter on reparations of this Judgment. 59. In relation to a notarized certification of photographs of a web page from the Facebook social network with profiles of members of the Pacheco Tineo family, provided by the State,46 the Court considers that this is inadmissible because it is irrelevant as regards the facts of this case, which is not related to the financial capacity of this family or their living conditions in Chile. 60. In a brief transmitted after the final written arguments, the State forwarded the text of Law No. 370, the Immigration Act, promulgated on May 8, 2013, alleging that the Court had requested this at the hearing. Although the content of this law is not related to the merits of the case, the Court admits it as information that may be useful in the chapter on reparations. 61. Regarding the other documents that were contested, the Court considers that the State’s arguments relate to their probative meaning and scope, but do not affect their admissibility as part of the body of evidence. C. Admission of the statements of the presumed victims, witness, and expert witnesses 62. Regarding the statements made before notary public and those rendered during the public hearing, the Court admits them and considers them pertinent insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order requiring them. These statements will be assessed in the corresponding chapter, together with the other elements of the body of evidence, and taking into account any pertinent observations made by the parties.47 In this regard, the State asked the Court to reject specific parts of the statements, because they were not substantiated and because they lacked a causal nexus to the facts of the case, which relates to their probative value and does not affect their admissibility. 63. On providing his expert opinion during the public hearing, expert witness Juan Carlos Murillo stated that, subsequently, he would present a brief with his opinion and complementary information in relation to the points raised by the parties and the questions of the judges. At 46 The State presented photographs published on the Facebook social network, in which the Pacheco Tineo couple presumably appear on holiday in other countries. 47 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 238, para. 25. 20