20. The Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Commission and the parties with their principal briefs (supra paras. 3, 6 and 7). As in other cases, the Court admits those documents submitted at the proper moment (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure),12 by the parties and the Commission, the admissibility of which was not contested or challenged, and the authenticity of which was not questioned. 13 21. The Court also received documents attached to the State’s final written arguments (supra para. 11).14 The representatives presented observations on those documents and indicated that they were not forwarded at the proper procedural moment. The Court notes that it had not requested the said documents, that they were not presented at the procedural moment established for providing documentary evidence, and that they did not constitute supervening evidence. Therefore, they will not be taken into consideration. 22. The Court also notes that the representatives attached documents to their brief of June 17, 2020, requesting that the Court receive the presumed victim’s statement.15 The State, in its final written arguments indicated that the said documents “should be rejected because they were not offered as evidence at the appropriate procedural stage.” The Court finds that the first of these documents, corresponding to a certification of hospitalization, had already been submitted by the presumed victim as an attachment to the pleadings and motions brief; regarding the second document – the discharge report – the Court finds that the State is correct, so that it will not be considered when deciding this matter. 23. In an order of the President of September 15, 2020, as helpful evidence, the State was asked to forward a copy of the laws to which this case refers. The State, in a brief received by the Court’s Secretariat on September 29, forwarded the documents requested. On January 12 and 28, 2021, the State was asked to present additional helpful documentation. The State presented the requested information on January 25 and February 3, 2021 (supra paras. 9 and 11). These documents were incorporated into the body of evidence. B. Admissibility of the statements offered 24. The Court finds it pertinent to admit the expert opinions provided by affidavit, 16 as well as the statement of the presumed victim provided by videoconference, insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined in the order requiring them and the purpose of this case. Generally and pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the documentary evidence may be presented together with the briefs submitting the case, or with pleadings and motions, or with the answering brief, as applicable. Evidence submitted at times other than these procedural occasions is not admissible, save in the exceptions established in the said Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (force majeure, grave impediment) or in the case of a supervening fact – in other words, a fact that has occurred following the said procedural moments. 12 Cf. Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure; also Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 35. 13 The State attached two document; the first corresponded to a newspaper article entitled: “IDL: La lucha anticorrupci��n y la reorganización interna son parte de las tareas pendientes del Poder Judicial” [Combatting corruption and an internal reorganization are the Judiciary’s pending tasks]. The second was an article entitled: “CNM: Ratificando el poder” [Ratifying powers], published in the Ideele journal. 14 The documents forwarded by the representatives corresponded to a certification of hospitalization and a report on Mr. Cordero Bernal’s discharge of June 2019. 15 The Court received the affidavits of three witnesses proposed by the State: Inés Felipa Villa Bonilla, Marielka Nepo Linares and Víctor Alberto Corante Morales; and of one expert witness proposed by the State: Ramón Huapaya Tapia (evidence file, folios 1766 to 1876). In the brief submitted the case, the Inter-American Commission offered an expert opinion, but later withdrew the offer. 16 7