"additional observations" filed on January 19, 2011, that is, almost two years after the ruling on the admissibility of Petition No. 616/06 by the Commission. 30. Allegations seeking to challenge the Commission's jurisdiction to examine a petition on the basis of non-compliance with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for in Article 46 of the American Convention must be presented following the admissibility procedure before the Commission. 14 Any subsequent allegation concerning the failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be considered extemporaneous. Since the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is considered a requirement of admissibility that can be waived by the State, the silence or omissions of the State during the admissibility procedure must be interpreted as an acceptance of the Commission's jurisdiction to examine the petition. Therefore, the extemporaneous submission of allegations of failure to exhaust domestic remedies with the Commission cannot serve as a basis for questioning compliance with the requirements established in Article 46 of the Convention and, consequently, the Court's jurisdiction to examine the case, once it has been so referred. 31. Consequently, the Court concludes that the preliminary objection presented by the State concerning the failure to exhaust domestic remedies in this case is extemporaneous, which is why it must be rejected. V TESTIMONY A. Admissibility of documentary evidence 32. The Court received various documents submitted as evidence by the Commission and the parties, annexed to their pleadings in their main briefs. In this case, as in others, 15 the Court admits the evidentiary value of those documents presented by the parties and by the Commission within the appropriate procedural moment. The parties did not dispute or object to those documents and did not question their authenticity. 33. In their observations, the representatives asserted that some of the annexes presented by the State with its final written arguments are new, but were presented without justification and after the term to do so had expired; others are found to be either incomplete, incoherent, illegible, or irregular. Meanwhile, others had already been presented by the State on previous occasions, together with the response, making them redundant and unnecessary. The Court notes that the State sent several new documents with its final written arguments without justifying why they were being submitted, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure. In addition, the Court has found that the documents contained in annexes 6 and 8 were issued after the response was filed on May 13, 2019. In view of the foregoing, this Court admits the documents in accordance with Article 57 of the Court's Rules of Procedure, insofar as they relate to events that occurred after the submission of the answering brief. 16 Regarding annexes 3 and 11, concerning documents related to the Truth Commission, these seek to answer aspects indicated during the public hearing, so they 14 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra, para. 88, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brasil, supra, para. 27. 15 Cfr. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 140, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brasil, supra, para. 37. 16 Namely: Resolution No. 043/2022 of the Second Court of Criminal Judgment, of March 2, 2022 (case file evidence, p. 9276-9279); Report by Sarina Guardia Guardia, District Prosecutor regarding the Visual Inspections of December 16 and 17, 2021, and photographic record, of February 3, 2022 (case file evidence, p. 9283-9310). 10