40. For its part, the State presented various comments on the annexes to the final arguments of the representatives. However, those observations concern the probative value of the documents, not their admissibility. The Court hereby admits the aforementioned documents because Annexes 1–3 refer to events subsequent to the pleadings and motions brief and concern the alleged context of violence related to land conflicts in Brazil; Annexes 4 and 5 address facts related to the civil compensation proceedings subsequent to that brief; and Annexes 6 and 7 are documents provided as evidence of legal expenses incurred by the representatives in this case. Brazil’s observations will be taken into consideration in the examination of the evidence. 41. The representatives, for their part, objected to Annex 4 of the State’s final arguments, alleging that the document was presented late, as it was published in 2019 and does not address a question posed by a judge during the public hearing of this case. The Court notes that, indeed, the aforementioned annex refers to a 2019 order of the National Council of the Prosecutor General whose purpose is to allow the participation of victims of crimes or their families in investigations carried out by the Public Prosecutor's Office, which means that it neither concerns this case nor addresses any question the judges posed to the State during the hearing. In view of the above, and as the document is dated prior to the presentation of the answering brief by the State, it is inadmissible due to untimeliness under the terms of Article 57(2) of the Court's Rules of Procedure. B. Admissibility of the testimonial and expert evidence 42. This Court finds it appropriate to admit the statements provided by affidavit 29 and during the public hearing 30 insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them and the purpose of this case. 31 VII FACTS 43. In this chapter, the Court will establish the facts considered proven in this case, based on the body of evidence that has been admitted and on the factual framework described in the Merits Report. In addition, it will include those facts presented by the parties that serve to explain, clarify, or refute this factual framework. This chapter includes three parts. The first addresses the context of violence and impunity related to land struggles in Brazil. The second includes analysis of the facts prior to the State’s recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction; the Court will treat them exclusively as background information for the case and will not use them as a basis for any legal determinations. The third part consists of facts subsequent to the aforementioned date of recognition of jurisdiction (supra para. 15). A. Context of violence and impunity related to land struggles in Brazil 44. Brazil possesses a vast territory with a great capacity for both production and social settlement, and it has been characterized by an unequal distribution of property since colonial 29 Statements by affidavit were received from Sérgio Sales Pimenta, Marcos Sales Pimenta, André Sales Pimenta, Daniel Sales Pimenta, Darci Frigo, José Batista Gonçalves Afonso, Deborah Macedo Duprat de Britto Pereira, Cristina Mair Barros Mauer, Fernando Michelotti, Carlos Eduardo Gaio, Laurel Emilie Fletcher, and Maria Adelina Guglioti Braglia (proposed by the representatives); a statement was also received from Guilherme Brenner Lucchesi (proposed by the State). 30 Statements were received from Rafael Sales Pimenta and Rui Carlo Dissenha (proposed by the representatives), Douglas Sampaio Franco (proposed by the State), and Renan Bernardi Kalil (proposed by the Commission). 31 The purposes of the statements are set forth in the February 17, 2022, Order of the President of the Court. Available in Spanish at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/sales_pimenta_17_02_22_spa.pdf. 12