that this case does not have the characteristics defined in Article 35(2) and, therefore, it will consider those persons identified in the Comission’s Merits Report as victims.15 32. In view of the foregoing, the Court will not consider Carlos Eduardo Garzón Guzmán and Byron Gonzalo Garzón Guzmán as victims in this case, as they were not identified as such by the Commission. Similarly, since the Commission stated in its Merits Report that during the proceedings of the case mention was made of a niece of Mr. Garzón Guzmán as a member of his family, who was identified by the representative as Ana Julia Lascano Garzón, and since the State manifested that the recognition of responsibility in this case should be limited to the contents of the Merits Report, Ms. Lascano Garzón will be considered a victim. VI EVIDENCE A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 33. The Court received various documents, attached to the main briefs, presented as evidence by the Commission, the representative and the State, (supra paras. 3, 6 and 7). As in other cases, the Court admits those documents that have been presented in a timely manner (Article 57 of the Rules)16 by the parties and by the Commission, the admissibility of which was not disputed nor objected to and the authenticity of which was not doubted.17 34. The Court also received documents attached to the final written arguments presented by the State. The representative of the alleged victims made some observations on those attachments and the Commission did not comment on the matter. The Court finds that, among the annexes provided by the State, there are four documents 18 issued by national authorities after the period, defined in the Court’s Rules, to provide evidence. The Court considers that it is supervening evidence and, therefore, the documents will be admitted as such. With respect to the other documents,19 the Court notes that they were not offered within the period Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 48 and Case of Olivares Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 10, 2020. Series C No. 415, para. 20. During the public hearing held January 27-28, 2021, the State responded in the affirmative when asked whether the acquiescence was limited to what was established in the Merits Report with respect to the alleged victims. 15 Documentary evidence may be presented, in general and in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules, together with the brief with pleadings and motions or with the answering brief, as applicable. Evidence submitted outside the procedural moment is not admissible, except in situations defined in Article 57(2) (force majeure or serious impediment) or if it concerns a supervening event; namely, occurring after the aforementioned procedural moments. 16 Cf. Article 57 of the Rules. See also, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140 and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Serie C No. 426, para. 39. 17 These documents are: (i) Memorandum Nº FGE-CGAJP-DDHPC-2021-00002-M of January 4, 2021, signed by the prosecutor Andrés Jorge Cuasapaz Arcos, transmitted by communication Nº FGE-CGAJP-DDHPC-2021000021-O on the same day; (ii) Report on the Agreements of Moral Redress, transmitted by communication Nº DPECGPDHN-2021-0001-O, of January 15, 2021, signed by Harold Andrés Burbano Villareal, General Coordinator of the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment of the Office of the Ombudsman; (iii) Report on the actions taken in relation to the procedure of pucuniary reparation to documented victims in the Report of the Truth and Human Rights Commission, transmitted by communication Nº SDH-DPRIAC-2021-0008-O of January 7, 2021, signed by Andrea Verónica Álvarez Morquecho, Director of Protection, Full Reparation and Central Authority of the Secretariat of Human Rights and (iv) Report on the Gustavo Garzón case, transmitted by communication Nº DPECGPDHN- 20210001-O, of January 15, 2021, signed by Harold Andrés Burbano Villareal, General Coordinator of the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment of the Office of the Ombudsman. 18 These documents are: (i) Report Nº FGE-DCVDH-2018-037 of March 19, 2018, signed by María Carolina Baca, Director of the Office of the Truth and Human Rights Commission of the Office of the Prosecutor General of the State; (ii) Report Nº FGE-DCVDH-2018-086 of July 9, 2018, signed by María Carolina Baca, Director of the Office of 19 9