correspond to documents issued after the State’s answering brief, and therefore, by virtue of Article 57(2) of the Rules of the Court, they are admitted into the body of evidence. With respect to the other three documents, 20 since they are of an earlier date and none of the exceptions defined in the Rules of Procedure are met, the Court will not admit them. B. Admissibility of the testimonial and expert evidence 30. The Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements rendered by affidavit 21 and in the public hearing, 22 insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined in the order that required them and the purpose of the present case. 31. In its final arguments, the State claimed that several points in the statements lacked veracity. The Court notes that these observations refer to their content and possible evidentiary assessment. Therefore, the Court deems it pertinent to admit them, taking into consideration, where pertinent, the observations of the State when assessing their evidentiary value. VI FACTS 32. In this chapter, the Court will establish the facts of the case based on the factual framework submitted by the Inter-American Commission, in relation to: A) the applicable regulatory framework; B) the renegotiation of the collective bargaining agreement and the strike of 1996 and C) the dismissals by the Supreme Court of Justice and the appeals filed against them. A. Applicable legal framework 33. The present case is related to a labor dispute involving former employees of Guatemala’s Judiciary (Organismo Judicial). This institution is in charge of the Judicial Branch of Guatemala 23 and consists of two main areas: the jurisdictional area composed of all the courts and the administrative area. Its highest body is the Supreme Court of Justice. At the time of the facts, labor disputes were regulated by the Constitution, the Labor Code, the Law on Unionization and Strike Regulations for State Employees and the Collective Working Agreement between the Judiciary Workers’ Union (Sindicato de Trabajadores del Organismo Judicial-STOJ) (hereinafter STOJ) and the Judiciary of Guatemala. The main articles of these regulatory instruments, useful for understanding the case, are transcribed below. A.1. Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala 7, 2021 and Official letter No. OC-438-2021/WGLS/ifgn of the Financial Management Unit of the Accounting Division of the Judiciary of July 19, 2021. 20 These include the following documents: Governmental Agreement 99-2020 of the President of the Republic of Guatemala, of July 30, 2020; Official letter No. 2215-CRFR/Ibfg of the Personnel Department of the Judiciary, of September 28, 1999 and Official letter No. 532-JAAF/aamg of the Personnel Department of the Judiciary, of April 28, 2000. The Court received the statements rendered by affidavit of the alleged victims Floricelda Hernández Guerra and Orlan Manuel Morales Pineda, obtained ex officio by the Court (evidence file, folios 3729 to 3752). 21 22 The Court received the statement of the alleged victims Freddy Eduardo Ávila Rodríguez and Edgar Arnoldo Luarca Domínguez, as well as the expert opinion of Miguel Francisco Canessa Montejo, offered by the Commission, in public hearing. 23 According to the Constitution of Guatemala, the term “Organism” is used as a synonym of “Power,” and thus, Article 141 establishes that “Sovereignty is vested in the people who delegate its exercise to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Organisms […].” 10