24 D. Delimitation of the dispute 71. During the public hearing and in its final written arguments, Peru argued that the alleged failure of the State to deliver the results of the DNA tests and the forensic work carried out since 2009 are not related to the central facts of the present dispute, and could not give rise to the State’s international responsibility, since both the Commission and the representatives identified them not as an act in violation of the Convention, but as a proposed reparation measure in which the State should adopt a series of actions aimed at the final identification of the skeletal remains. 72. The Court considers that the State’s arguments regarding the factual framework of the case are time-barred. Nevertheless, the Court notes that the State seeks to exclude from the legal analysis of the case a part of facts that have been argued as constituting the alleged forced disappearance of the victims. In this regard, the Court noted that in paragraphs 169, 170, 187 and 251 of the Report on Admissibility and Merits of July 21, 2011, the Commission referred to the following aspects in its analysis on the merits of the case: the forensic procedures carried out in 2010 consisting of the exhumation of remains found inside the “Misteriosa” mine; the forensic reports made in this regard; the taking of blood and saliva samples from the victims’ next of kin for DNA testing, and the failure to deliver the results of the DNA tests in 2010. It is clear then that these elements are part of the factual framework of the case and, therefore, they will be considered by the Court. VII EVIDENCE A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 73. The Court received various documents submitted as evidence by the Commission and the parties, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 4, 7 and 8). Likewise, it received from the State several documents requested as helpful evidence. It also received the statements rendered by affidavit 49 of Gabriella Citroni and Fredy Armando Peccerelli Monterroso, expert witnesses proposed by the Commission, as well as the statements of the expert witnesses Ronald Alex Gamarra Herrera, Miryam Rebeca Rivera Holguín, Alejandro Valencia Villa and Jaime Mario Urrutia Ceruti, and of the alleged victims Zósimo Hilario Quispe, Marcelo Hilario Quispe, Gregorio Hilario Quispe, Víctor Carhuapoma de la Cruz, Abilio Hilario Quispe and Marcelina Guillen Riveros, all of them proposed by the representatives. Likewise, it received the testimony of the witness Rurik Jurqi Medina Tapia, proposed by the State. Regarding the evidence given at the public hearing, the Court heard the testimony of Zenón Cirilo Osnayo Tunque and the expert opinion of José Pablo Baraybar do Carmo, proposed by the representatives, as well as the testimony of Luis Alberto Rueda Curimania, a witness proposed by the State. During the public hearing, the expert witness José Pablo Baraybar do Carmo presented his written expert report. Finally, the Court received documents presented by the State and the representatives attached to their respective final written arguments. B. Admission of the evidence 49 On January 12, 2015, the representatives withdrew the statement of Marino Huamaní Vergara. On January 5, 2015, the President of the Court approved the State’s request to substitute the statement to be made at the public hearing with and affidavit rendered by the witness Rurik Jurqi Medina Tapia, who was “unable to appear as a witness [at the hearing] in the city of San José, Costa Rica” for professional reasons.