35 86. Colombia challenged the authenticity of the private document regarding the bargain and sale on February 10, 1992, between Marco Tulio Bustos Ortiz and Luz Mery Pinzón López, because it mentions “the Mapiripán Massacre that took place in 1997.” Since it is absolutely impossible to refer to events that happened in 1997 in a document signed in 1992, the Court does not accept said document as evidence in the instant case. 87. The State challenged the evidence submitted at the public hearing by the representatives “because it was not supervening.” It also challenged all the evidence submitted after the appropriate procedural moment and not known “previously by the State […] because it violates its right of rebuttal”. In this regard, the Court accepts said evidence because it is useful for its ruling in the instant case, taking into account the comments made by the State and based on Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure.16 88. This Court also notes that the State also submitted documentary evidence after its reply to the application. Specifically, as an appendix to its brief with final pleadings, Colombia submitted a “legal expert opinion” prepared by James Crawford. Said document states that “[g]iven the lack of specific details on the case, the […] discussion is necessarily general in nature. The Court will address the facts in detail based on the evidence submitted by the parties.”; in other words, the text does not address the facts of the case. 89. The Court deems the documents forwarded by the State in its final written pleadings to be useful (supra para. 40) –except for the document submitted by James Crawford for the reasons given in the previous paragraph-, which were neither disputed nor challenged, and whose authenticity or veracity was not questioned, for which reason this Court includes them in the body of evidence, in accordance with Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 90. Also applying the provisions set forth in Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court includes the following evidence tendered in the Case of the 19 Tradesmen in the body of evidence of the instant case because it is useful to decide on the instant case: Law 48 of December 16, 1968, legislative Decree 3398 of December 24, 1965, as well as Decrees 0180 of January 27, 1988, 0815 of April 19, 1989, 1194 of June 8, 1989 and 2266 of October 4, 1991; the March 17, 1998 judgment issued by the High Military Court, the May 25, 1989 judgment issued by the Supreme Court of Justice, the April 14, 1998 judgment issued by the Tribunal Nacional, the May 28, 1997 judgment issued by the Regional Court of Cúcuta, all of them in Colombia; and the report by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on summary or arbitrary executions regarding the visit to Colombia from October 11 to 20, 1989 (E/CN.4/1990/22/Add.1 of January 24, 1990). The Court also includes the following evidence in the body of evidence, due to its usefulness for a decision on the instant case: Decree 3030/90 of December 14, 1990; Decree 2535 issued on December 17, 1993; Decree 356/94 issued on February 11, 1994; Law 418 of December 26, 1997; Law 548 of December 23, 1999; Law 782 of December 23, 2002; Decree No. 324 issued on February 25, 2000; Decree 3360 issued on 16 See Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 13, para. 81; Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paras. 78 and 85, and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 90.