contested or challenged and the authenticity of which was not questioned. 18 36. The Court observes that, together with her final written arguments, the representative presented vouchers for expenses incurred for the psychological report prepared by Harvis Andrana Cordero Loayza, and for the expert opinion signed by Vladimir Díaz Pillaca. Both documents were forwarded as annexes to the pleadings and motions brief. When presenting its observations, the State indicated, among other matters, that the presentation of the vouchers was time-barred. The State also presented annexes to its final written arguments.19 The representative, in her observations, questioned the usefulness and pertinence of the documents sent by the State. The Commission indicated that it had no comments to make in this regard. 37. The Court recalls that, regarding the procedural opportunity for the presentation of documentary evidence, pursuant to Article 57(1) of the Rules of Procedure this should generally be presented together with the briefs submitting the case or with pleadings and motions, or with the answering brief, as applicable. Consequently, the Court reiterates that evidence forwarded outside the appropriate procedural opportunities is inadmissible, save in the case of the exceptions established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure; namely, force majeure, grave impediment, or if it relates to a fact that took place after the said procedural moments.20 The Court points out that the expenses supported by the vouchers presented as annexes to the representative’s final written arguments had been incurred before the presentation of the pleadings and motions brief and, despite this, were not sent together with that document. Consequently, the said vouchers will not be taken into consideration when calculating the costs and expenses. In the case of the documents presented by the State with its final written arguments, the Court notes that their time-barred presentation was not justified by any of the exceptional reasons established in the Rules of Procedure, and they were not expressly requested by the Court as helpful evidence; therefore, they will not be taken into consideration. For the same reasons, the Court will not take into account the documents forwarded by the representative when submitting her observations on the annexes to the State’s final written arguments. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Mota Abarullo et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 18, 2020. Series C No. 417, para. 27. 18 The State forwarded the following documents: (a) Decree Law No. 25418 of April 6, 1992, Law establishing the foundations for the National Emergency and Reconstruction Government; (b) Decree Law No. 25505 of May 20, 1992, Appointment of Provisional Prosecutor General; (c) Law No. 26695 of November 29, 1996, Expansion of the authority of the President of the Supreme Court of Justice and adoption of various rules on the composition and term limits of the executive committees of the Judiciary and the Public Prosecution Service; (d) Resolution No. 3893-2018MP-FN of the Prosecutor General of October 30, 2018, amended by Resolution No. 1974-2019-MP-FN of the Prosecutor General of July 26, 2019, Regulations for the Organization and Functions of the Public Prosecution Service – Prosecutor General’s Office; (e) Resolution No. 035-96-MP-FNCEMP of the Executive Committee of the Public Prosecution Service of July 12, 1996, amended by Resolution No. 335-98-MP-CEMP of the Executive Committee of the Public Prosecution Service of April 24, 1998; (f) Law No. 27368 of November 7, 2000, which amends or re-establishes articles of the Organic Law of the National Council of the Judiciary and requires that a national competitive selection procedure be held for judges of the Judiciary and of the Public Prosecution Service; (g) Resolution No. 041-2000-CNM of the National Council of the Judiciary of November 20, 2000, Regulations of the competitive selection procedure for the appointment of judges and prosecutors; (h) Resolution No. 076-2002-P-FSDDJ-A of August 23, 2002, Public Prosecution Service; (i) Management Resolution No. 449-2003-MP-FN-GECPER of April 29, 2002, Public Prosecution Service; (j) Role of prosecutors at the national level who will operate in accordance with their terms of reference on April 9, 2000, in compliance with Resolution No. 227-2000-MPCEMP of April 3, 2000; (k) Supreme Decree No. 3532019-EF of November 29, 2019, adopting salary rates and allowances for the jurisdictional function of the supernumerary judges of the Judiciary who do not form part of the judicial career, and provisional prosecutors of the Public Prosecution Service who do not form part of the prosecutorial career, and (l) Resolution No. 2772-2015-MP-FN of June 10, 2015, of the Prosecutor General 19 Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 17, and Case of Mota Abarullo et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 27. 20 11