- 20 - evidence with its answering brief or alleged valid circumstances that would justify the late presentation of the documents identified as Annexes 150 and 2 and the second document provided in Annex 5 to its final written arguments and, furthermore, that these documents did not contribute to clarification of the facts of the case and did not prove what the State claimed. Regarding Annex 2 and the second document of Annex 5, the Court notes that the State submitted them to substantiate its comments on the statements of two presumed victims. The final written arguments provide the procedural opportunity to submit observations on the statements received in the case.51 Therefore, the Court admits both items of evidence, without prejudice to taking into account the representatives’ arguments concerning their content and assessment. Regarding Annex 1, consisting in videos of selected scenes of the events of May 3 and 4, 2006, the Court considers that, contrary to the State’s claims, these videos and the information that can be inferred from them were not requested by the judges during the public hearing before the Court or by its President; accordingly, the State has not provided adequate justification for submitting them after the proper procedural moment – that is, with the answering brief. Consequently, the Court considers that this evidence is time-barred and, pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, its incorporation into the body of evidence in this case is inadmissible. 51. Lastly, regarding the evidence on expenditure forwarded by the representatives with their final written arguments, the Court will only consider those documents that refer to new costs and expenses incurred by the representatives due to the proceedings before this Court; in other words, those incurred following the presentation of the motions and pleadings brief.52 B. Admission of the testimonial and expert evidence 52. The Court also finds it pertinent to admit the statements of the presumed victims, the deponent for information purposes, and the expert opinions provided during the public hearing53 and by affidavit,54 insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them and the purpose of this case. case 79/2006 opened against Ana María Velasco Rodríguez for the offense of lewd conduct) and Annex 5(2) (brief filed by the victims in the context of criminal cases 55/2013 and 166/2014). Regarding Annex 1, the representatives argued that, although the State indicated that it had been forwarded in answer to questions posed by the judges regarding the number of police agents and protestors, “the videos do not help determine the total number of police agents and protestors that were present, [and] the State [would appear to be] trying […] to justify submitting extracts of videos that show moments in which the protestors committed wrongful and/or violent acts,” while those scenes “cannot be considered to show the actions of all the protestors.” They indicated that the fact that some groups of protestors committed wrongful and/or violent acts was not in dispute, but this was documented in evidence that had already been incorporated into the body of evidence in the case, and the videos provided by the State “tend to distort rather than clarify certain aspects of the operation.” 50 Cf. Case of Selvas Gómez et al. v. Mexico. Call to a hearing. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 18, 2017, eighth operative paragraph. 51 Cf. Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2016. Series C No. 314, para. 41, and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 341, para. 47. 52 At the public hearing, the Court received the statement of the victims, Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio, Claudia Hernández Martínez, Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno, Angélica Patricia Torres Linares and Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo, as well as the deponent for information purposes, Ernesto López Portillo, and the expert opinion of Julissa Mantilla. The Court also received written versions of the last two statements. 53 The Court received affidavits from the presumed victims, María Patricia Romero Hernández, Georgina Edith Rosales Gutiérrez, Mariana Selvas Gómez, Ana María Velasco Rodríguez, Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada and Cristina Sánchez Hernández, and with the expert opinions of Regina Tames, Duarte Nuno Pessoa Vieira, Ximena Antillón, Rob Varenik, Susana SáCouto, Maina Kiai and Daniela Kravetz. 54