VI. EVIDENCE 31. The Court admits those documents submitted at the proper procedural opportunity by the parties and by the Commission (Article 57 of the Rules), the admissibility of which was not disputed nor objected to and the authenticity of which was not placed in doubt. 19 The Court also deems it pertinent to admit the statements made in the public hearing 20 and by affidavit, 21 provided that they conform to the object defined by the President in the resolutions that ordered that they be received. 22 The Court also accepts the documentation presented by the representatives annexed to their final written arguments and the receipts for costs and expenses related to the litigation of the case before the Court. 23 VII. FACTS 32. In this chapter, the Court will establish the facts to be proved in the present case, taking into consideration the body of evidence that has been admitted, the factual framework set forth in the Merits Report and the State’s acknowledgement of international responsibility. It will also include the information presented by the parties that would explain, clarify or reject that factual framework. The facts will be presented as follows: a) the pertinent normative framework; b) the detention, the deprivation of liberty and the criminal proceedings against Jorge Marcial and Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López; c) the writs of amparo filed; d) the decisions of local and international bodies and e) the threats against a lawyer of the victims and the death of Gustavo Robles López. A. On the pertinent normative framework 33. This case deals with the analysis of two institutions that have been established in the legal norms of Mexico: arraigo and pre-trial detention. 34. The institution of arraigo was included in the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure of 1999 (hereinafter also “Federal Code of 1999”) and in the Federal Law against Organized Crime of 1996 (hereinafter also “Federal Law of 1996”), as they were in force when the events in this case occurred. The norm on arraigo was amended and, beginning in 2008, it was incorporated into the Federal Constitution, which was also subsequently amended. 35. When the events in this case occurred, pre-trial detention, which was applied to the victims in this case, was governed by the Federal Code of 1999, which was subsequently amended, and pre-trial Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140 and Case of the Julien Grisonas family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2021. Series C No. 437, para. 48. 19 20 Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Luis Raúl González Pérez, Carlos María Pelayo Moller and Esteban Gilberto Arcos offered their statements. Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Stephanie Erin Brewer, José Antonio Guevara Bermúdez, Erika Bardales Lazcano and Jorge Ulises Carmona Tinoco presented their affidavits. 21 22 The object of the statements were established in the Order of the President of the Court of May 24, 2022. In its final written arguments, the State affirmed that it had not received the statements of: a) Luis Raúl González Pérez; b) Carlos María Pelayo Moller; c) Stephanie Erin Brewer and d) José Antonio Guevara Bermúdez and requested that “those statements of experts not be taken into consideration.” The Court sent the receipts that prove that they were sent and also resent the documents and granted the State an additional period to present its observations on the statements, thus guaranteeing its right of defense. 23 They presented the following documents: 1) a summary of expenses; 2) copies of invoices of airline tickets; 3) copies of taxi receipts and 4) copies of receipts for meals (evidence file, ff. 31450 to 31507). 10