19 63. The State also argued that the brief of final pleadings by the Inter-American Defenders was time-barred, as it had been submitted after the final deadline of June 30, 2014. The Court notes that the records of the Court Registrar’s email server show that the Inter-American Defenders did in fact submit their brief within the term defined in the president’s order of April 10, 2014 (supra par. 12), but to an alternate Court email address. When they discovered this situation the next day, the Inter-American Defenders resubmitted their brief to the Court’s primary email. 64. The Court recalls that this is an international proceeding and requires the submission by electronic means of a considerable volume of information; Articles 28 and 33 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure allow the use of this medium, and the material was in fact submitted within the allotted time frame, and therefore it will admit the brief of final pleadings by the representatives and hold them to have been received within the term established in Article 28 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.57 65. The Court, moreover, will allow statements delivered during the public hearing and by affidavit only insofar as they meet the purpose defined by the president of the Court in the summons issued by Court order (supra par. 10). 66. With specific reference to the expert testimony given by Miguel Lovatón, the State has asserted that “it is riddled with references to rules, regulations, verdicts and internal documents of the State of Peru […] and the State of Argentina […] – matters unrelated and foreign to inter-American public order in the field of human rights, [and that he himself] expressed opinions on the analysis of the case, thus seriously overstepping the purpose of this expert testimony.” The State therefore asked the Court to “withhold the following points from its consideration: (c) models of military justice, (f) circumscription of military crimes or crimes committed in the line of duty and (g) inter-American standards and Argentine military justice as expounded in the expert report produced by the [Commission] because it exceeded the purpose of the expert testimony and is unrelated to matters of international public order.” 67. The Court replies that the State’s remarks address the content of the expert opinion and therefore do not detract from its admissibility, but in any case, they will be taken into account when the Court weighs the statement alongside the full body of evidence. With respect to the argument that the expert witness did not limit his opinion to the purpose set forth in the order of the president, the Court will weigh the content of the expert statement insofar as it serves the purpose for which the expert was summoned. 58 C. Weighing the evidence 68. Based on the provisions of articles 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure and on its jurisprudence constante regarding evidence and how it is assessed, 59 the Court will examine and weigh the evidentiary documentation adduced by the parties and the Commission within the procedural time-limits and the expert opinions given via sworn 57 Cfr. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, par. 37 and 39, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012, Series C No. 251, par. 21. 58 Cfr. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, par. 42, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, par. 60. 59 Cfr. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, par. 51, and Case of Tarazona Arrieta et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 15, 2014. Series C No. 285, par. 28.