the State submitted its observations on the annexes to the representative’s final written arguments. 11. Deliberation of the instant case. The Court deliberated on this judgment in a virtual session held on May 17, 2023. III JURISDICTION 12. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, as Paraguay has been a State Party to the Convention since August 24, 1989, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 11, 1993. Furthermore, the State deposited the instrument of ratification of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on September 3, 1990. IV EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of documentary evidence 13. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representative and the State, which, as in other cases, are admitted on the understanding that they were submitted at the proper procedural opportunity (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure), 8 and their admissibility was neither contested nor opposed. 14. The Court also received documents attached to the final written arguments of the representative 9 and the State. 10 In a letter from the Secretariat dated March 6, 2023, the parties and the Commission were set a deadline for making observations on the annexes submitted by the parties along with their final written arguments. In letters 8 Documentary evidence may be submitted, in general and pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, together with the first case documents submitted to the Court, or with the pleadings and motions or answering briefs, as appropriate. Evidence may not be submitted at other procedural moments, except in the special cases also established in Article 57(2) (i.e., force majeure or serious impediment), or if it refers to an event that occurred after the permitted points in the process. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2023. Series C No. 484, para. 39. 9 Annex 1: Disciplinary Regulations of the National Police, 1995, Articles 53 to 59; and Annex 2: Organizational Law of the National Police 222/93. 10 Annex 1: Interoffice Memorandum No. 89 of May 20, 2000; Annex 2: Decision No. 263 of May 2, 2000; Annex 3: Memorandum from the National Police of May 23, 2000; Annex 4: Decision No. 89 of May 23, 2000, of the judge on duty of the Fourth Court of First Instance; Annex 5: Memorandum of May 23, 2000, from the judge on duty of the Fourth Court of First Instance; Annex 6: Order No. 91 of May 31, 2000, of the judge on duty of the Fourth Court of First Instance; Annex 7: Order of the judge on duty of the Fourth Court of First Instance of June 17, 2000; Annex 8.1: Order No. 95 of June 19, 2000, of the judge on duty of the Fourth Court of First Instance; Annex 8.2: Judgment No. 234 of June 19, 2000, of the Directorate of Police Justice; Annex 9: Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 10, 2022; Annex 10: Organizational Law of the National Police 5,757, of December 7, 2016, which amends several articles of Law 222/93 “Organizational Law of the National Police”; Annex 11: Decision No. 361 of April 25, 2020, approving the Disciplinary Regulations of the National Police; Annex 12: Decision No. 789 of October 16, 2020, establishing new regulations for the administrative investigation proceedings of the National Police; Annex 13: Decision No. 358 of May 3, 2022, amending Article 42 of the Regulations governing the administrative investigation proceedings of the National Police; Annex 14: Images of the cells of the Specialized Group and the “Cuadrilátero”; Annex 15: Organizational Law 222 of the National Police; and Annex 16: General Directorate of Human Talent, D.A.P. Memorandum 119/2023, of February 28, 2023. 6