a “preliminary objection,” if these arguments cannot be considered without previously analyzing the merits of a case, they cannot be examined by means of a preliminary objection. 12 25. The Court notes that the purpose of this case is to determine whether the State violated the rights to life, personal integrity, personal liberty, judicial guarantees, and judicial protection to the detriment of the alleged victims. Ecuador’s arguments, related to the existence of domestic reparation mechanisms after the Admissibility Report was issued in 2009, refer to issues that will be resolved when the Court hears the merits of the matter. In any event, the Court must determine whether the alleged violations occurred and, if so, whether the State has repaired such violations, or has the mechanisms in place to do so. All these decisions are matters relating to the merits of the dispute and, if applicable, the discussion of reparations. Therefore, since the State’s argument does not refer to matters related to the admissibility of the case, the Court dismisses the preliminary objection. V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of documentary evidence 26. The Court received several documents submitted as evidence by the Commission and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 1 and 8). As is its practice, the Court admits documents duly presented on time (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure) 13 by the parties and the Commission at the proper procedural moment, whose admissibility was neither contested nor opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned. 14 27. In addition, at the proper procedural moment and along with its final written arguments, the State submitted documents as annexes to the answering brief that were added to the file. B. Admissibility of testimonial and expert evidence 28. The Court deems it pertinent to admit the statements made in the public hearing, 15 to the extent that they comply with the purpose defined by the President in the Order requiring that they be submitted, and with the purpose of the instant case. 16 VI FACTS 29. The Court will determine the facts of the instant case based on the factual framework presented by the Commission, the arguments of the State, and the evidence provided. In order to set out the facts more clearly, they will be addressed in the following order: a) Joffre Aroca and his family; b) the events of February 27, 2001; c) the domestic proceedings (ordinary legal proceedings and police proceedings); d) the inclusion of the “Joffre Aroca” case Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 39, and Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 21. 13 Documentary evidence may be presented, in general and pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, together with the submission of the case, the pleadings, motions and answering briefs, where applicable. At other procedural moments, however, it is only admissible in the exceptional circumstances established in Article 57(2) (namely, force majeure, serious impediment), or if it refers to an event that occurred after the procedural moments specified. 12 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 25, 2022. Series C No. 462, para. 31. 15 In a public hearing, the Court heard the testimony of Cynthia Aroca Palma and the expert opinion of Christian Gallo Molina. 16 The purpose of the statements is established in the order issued by the President of the Court, dated May 17, 2022. 14 8