9 A) DOCUMENTARY, TESTIMONIAL AND EXPERT EVIDENCE 30. At the request of the President, the written statements of the following witnesses proposed by the representatives were admitted: a) Adrián Sapeti, witness. As Mr. Kimel’s psychiatrist, he gave testimony on the consequences of the judicial proceeding brought against the victim on his emotional and physical condition. b) Juan Pablo Olmedo-Bustos, expert witness. He gave testimony on the incorporation to the Argentine legal system of international standards on the right to freedom of thought and expression and their enforcement by Argentine courts, and declared that such right is mainly restricted by the criminal definition of libel and slander, as “after the annulment of the crime of contempt, most cases regarding the restriction on the right to criticize the actions of public officials and to inform the public about issues of public interest have been started on the grounds of the violation of the right to have one’s honor respected.” Furthermore, he explained that “the application of general liability as set forth in the Civil Code is also inappropriat[e] for the regulation of freedom of thought and expression, which requires stricter and more foreseeable criteria for the subsequent attribution of liability. 31. Besides, the Court heard Mr. Kimel’s testimony at the public hearing, wherein he referred to the judicial proceeding brought against him, to the events leading thereto, and to its outcome, as well as to the alleged consequences that the civil and criminal sentence imposed on the victim by the Argentine courts had on his personal life and professional career. B) EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT 32. In this case, as in others,16 the Court recognizes the evidentiary value of the documents submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural stage, which have neither been disputed nor challenged and whose authenticity has not been questioned. As to the documents forwarded as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case (supra para. 11), the Court admits them into the body of evidence, pursuant to the provisions of Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 33. Likewise, the Court deems that the documents submitted by the State and the representatives during the public hearing are useful for the adjudication of the instant case and, therefore, admits them inasmuch as they have not been questioned nor has their authenticity or truthfulness been challenged. 34. As to the additional documents which were forwarded by the representatives together with the brief of closing arguments (supra para. 11) regarding legal costs and expenses, the Court reiterates that, under Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure, “the [e]vidence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if offered in the application and in the answer thereto.” Furthermore, the Court has held that “the claims of the victims or their representatives regarding legal costs and expenses, as well as the evidence supporting such claims, must be submitted to the Court at the start of the first procedural stage and at the first opportunity the parties are granted to do so, that is, in the brief of requests and arguments, without prejudice to such claims being updated at a later procedural stage, 16 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140; Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al, supra note 11, para. 37 and Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 14, para. 67.