31. The Court notes that the representatives and the Commission did not specifically refer to these comments by the State, since the representatives only referred to the applicable regulations. According to the information provided, there are doubts as to whether such statements were indeed rendered before a notary at the prison in which the deponents were detained. These doubts have not been challenged. Consequently, the Court will not give probative value to those two pieces of documentary evidence. 32. At the same time, the State presented certain documentation with its final written arguments, including laws, rules of procedure, a work report of the Ministry of the Interior and a national prison reform plan, for the purpose of reporting on the legal reforms and current regulations of the prison system, as well as providing answers to questions asked by the Judges during the hearing. The representatives and the Commission had an opportunity to present their observations on said documents (supra para. 12). With respect to a statement rendered by an inmate and a photograph of the entrance to the maternal block of the COF, the Court agrees with the Commission’s29 observation that the State did not justify the presentation of those documents outside the procedural moment established in the Rules of Procedure; that is to say, it did not justify them for reasons of force majeure or grave impediment, and did not refer to any supervening facts, after the date on which the answer brief was submitted. Therefore, this documentation is inadmissible. As to the rest of the documents, the Court includes these in the file in application of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure, solely as information on current prison regulations in Guatemala and insofar as they may contribute to explain the State’s position in relation to the Judges’ requests for information during the hearing.30 33. For their part, the representatives presented certain documents with their final written arguments and, in addition, forwarded receipts for expenses incurred in the proceeding before the Court. The State and the Commission had an opportunity to present their observations on said information and documentation. As to Annexes I31, III32, IV, V, VI33 and IX,34 the Court agrees with the State that the representatives did not justify their time-barred presentation for reasons of force majeure or serious impediment, and therefore these are not Regarding the statement made by an inmate named Maria Isabel Funes Vincente and the photograph of the entrance to the maternal block of the COF, presented by the State, the Commission observed that “the State did not justify any reason of “force majeure” or “grave impediment, or, that these referred to “supervening facts” after the date on which it forwarded its answer brief”, by which “such evidence is inadmissible.” Regarding the photograph of the entrance to the maternal block of the COF, the Commission observed that the State did not prove the authenticity of the photograph and that it showed the existence of a step to the entrance of the maternal block, confirming that the COF still does not guarantee the necessary accessibility for a person confined to a wheelchair. 29 30 Cf. Case García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 40. Annex I is a document prepared by the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) and the Institute for Comparative Studies in Criminal Sciences of Guatemala (ICCPG) containing observations regarding compliance with the Judgments delivered by the Inter-American Court in the cases of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala and Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala, and the implementation of the provisional measures ordered in favor of Bernardino Rodríguez Lara. 31 Annex III is Cifras de Impunidad del Crimen Policial Contra Mujeres (Rates of Impunity in Police Crimes against Women), a report published by the Guatemalan Institute for Comparative Studies in Criminal Sciences in 2005. 32 Annex IV is a report published on the web site of the Guatemalan organization Casa Artesana on the situation of the COF in 2014, which concludes that the situation of women deprived of their liberty remains non-compliant with the Bangkok Rules. Annexes V and VI contain news reports published in the media mentioned on page 22 of the brief of final arguments. 33 Annex IX is a certification of psychological and psychiatric treatment issued by a psychiatrist concerning the therapy that she gave Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval at the COF and the treatment given to her children after her death. 34 14