continuation that has been verified of the illegal logging operations by the company Maderas del Darién, according to the attached communication and documents.” The State opposed the admission of the brief and its annexes, considering that they corresponded to arguments and evidence that was time-barred, so that admitting it would violate the State’s right of defense, because the submission of briefs and arguments outside the regulatory procedural occasions without any justification or grounds, alters legal certainty, to the extent that the exclusive and peremptory procedural stages become inconclusive and undetermined, thus affecting equality of arms owing to the uncertainty that this situation generates for the State. The Commission also presented observations on this information, but did not contest its admissibility. 51. With regard to the procedural moment for the presentation of documentary evidence, according to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, this must be presented, in general, together with the briefs submitting the case, with motions and arguments, or answering the submission, as appropriate. The Court recalls that evidence provided outside these procedural opportunities is not admissible, except in the case of the exceptions established in the said Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure; in other words, force majeure, grave impediment or in relation to an event that occurred after the said procedural moments. 46 52. Regarding this brief, the Court notes that some documents47 presented in annexes are dated before the presentation of the motions and arguments brief and, consequently, the representatives could have been aware of them, so that they will not be incorporated into the body of evidence in the case, because they were not submitted at the appropriate procedural moment, taking into account that they are not justified by any of the exceptions established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. In relation to an incomplete and undated form containing a “survey, displaced population Cacarica [River] basin, Bajo Atrato, Chocó, Colombia,” the Court notes that its time-barred presentation was not justified by one of the exceptions established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure either. Regarding the other documents that were sent with the said brief, 48 the Court notes that they refer to documents produced by the organization that represents the presumed victims, and that they denounce supposedly dangerous situations that the presumed victims in the case are facing. In this regard, the Court notes that the said documents refer to events that do not form part of the actual framework of the case and to situations that are being monitored by the Inter-American Commission in the context of the precautionary measures in favor of the Cacarica Communities. Therefore, these documents cannot be incorporated into the body of evidence in this case.49 53. The Court also notes that the representatives and the State forwarded several documents with their final written arguments. 54. With regard to the statements and the documents entitled “Census Vivir Mejor Program”; “Solidarity Network Census” and “Letter, legal representative, Cacarica river basin” presented by the representatives, the State indicated that “the said statements [should] not be admitted […] and, since the representatives have incorporated some parts of them into their arguments, 46 Cf. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 22, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 40. 47 These documents are: (a) document of the Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz dated September 27, 2012, and (b) Minutes No. 001 of the special General Assembly of the Community Council of the Black Communities of the Cacarica river basin dated September 17, 1999. 48 Two letters dated September 10 and 25, 2012, from the Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz to the Ministry of the Interior and the President of the Republic of Colombia respectively. 49 The same criterion is applicable to informatiion provided in a brief dated October 25, 2012, in which the representatives of the presumed victims “advised” that a member of CAVIDA had received “a direct threat from a member of the Turbo paramilitary structures,” and that members of the Justice and Peace Commission in Bogota “had been followed by unknown persons.” 18