by this Court and by the other parties. 73 In this case, neither the other parties nor the Commission opposed, or submitted observations on, the content and authenticity of such documents. 58. Regarding the procedural opportunity for the presentation of documentary evidence, according to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, generally this should be presented together with the briefs submitting the case, with pleadings and motions, or answering the submission, as appropriate. The Court recalls that evidence provided outside the appropriate procedural opportunities is not admissible, unless one of the exceptions established in the said Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure is alleged; namely force majeure or serious impediment or if it refers to an event that occurred after the procedural occasions indicated. 59. The representatives provided certain documentation together with their observations on the preliminary objections indicating that it was “new evidence arising in recent months to show, once again, the violation of judicial guarantees by the State,” based on the “last part of Article 57 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.” In this regard, the Court notes that not all the documents conform to the description alleged by the representatives, or are even related to the facts and purpose of this case. 74 Therefore, pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court only admits the information and documentation that is subsequent to the presentation of the pleadings and motions brief and that is relevant for deciding this case. 75 This information and documentation will be assessed in the context of the body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judicial discretion. 60. The State and the representatives presented certain documentation together with their final written arguments in response to requests for information and helpful evidence made by the Court and its President (supra paras. 8, 9 and 10). No objections were raised to the admissibility of this documentation, and its authenticity and truth were not challenged. Consequently, pursuant to Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court finds it in order to admit the documents provided by the representatives and Argentina that were requested by this Court or its President as helpful evidence. This information and documentation will be assessed in the context of the body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judicial discretion. 61. Notwithstanding the above, the Court observes that, with their final written arguments, both the State and the representatives presented additional documents to those 73 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 26, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 44. 74 In particular, the Court does not admit the following documents, because they are not relevant to this case (because they are not related to the alleged facts or violations), or because they are not subsequent to the pleadings and motions brief: (Annex A) “Newspaper article from Clarín dated December 1997, where the court proposes to dismiss cases that are not significant”; (Annex B) “Newspaper article, where the ‘Kirchnerismo’, the governing party, represented by Dr. Salgado, proposes greater control over judges”; (Annex F) “Document with illustration presented in a 1999 criminal trial where the judge violated art. 207 of the CPCC”; (Annex H) “Denunciation of judges of the Mercedes courts for malfeasance on August 17, 2012, before the court attorney,” and (annex I) “Magazine of the Clarín newspaper of August 26, 2012, with a note on the front page relating to the illegal detention of an individual for seven years.” 75 In particular, the Court admits the following documents: (Annex C) “Ruling of the Criminal Chamber rejecting appeal on unconstitutionality and for review. 2009”; (Annex D) “Ruling of the Provincial Court, not annexed by the State, rejecting appeal on unconstitutionality and for review. 2012”; (Annex E) “1996 Decision of the Criminal Chamber granting the appeal on unconstitutionality to [the presumed victims]”; (annex G) “Civil case file from fs. 705 to 777 and at September 13, 2012, respectively, not annexed by the State”; (H) “Denunciation of judges of the Mercedes courts for malfeasance before the court attorney on August 17, 2012,” and (J) “Original invoices of expenditure arising from sending the petition by DHL, $911 and invoice for 516 photocopies amounting to 206.40 pesos.” 23