68. Also, with regard to some documents indicated by the parties and the Commission by means of electronic links, the Court has established that, if a party provides the direct link to the document that it cites as evidence and it is possible to access it, legal certainty and procedural balance are not affected because it can be located immediately by the Court and the other parties. 72 In this case, the other parties did not contest or submit observations on the content and authenticity of such documents. 69. Regarding the procedural occasions to present documentary evidence, according to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, in general, this must be presented together with the brief submitting the case, the pleadings and motions brief, or the answering brief, as appropriate. The Court recalls that evidence forwarded at any other time is not admissible, except in the case of the exceptions established in the said Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure; namely, force majeure or serious impediment, or if it relates to a fact that occurred after the said procedural occasions. In this regard, it observes that, with its final written arguments, the State forwarded documentation consisting in judgments of the domestic courts 73 and alleged evidence relating to the determination of the eventual reparations, costs and expenses, without providing any justification for its submission after its answering brief. In this regard, the Court finds that it is not appropriate to admit the copies of the domestic judgments submitted by the State at an inappropriate time; hence, the Court will not consider them in its decision. 70. The Court observes that, with its brief of August 22, 2011 (supra para. 12), the State included arguments, information and documentation that had not been requested by the Court as helpful evidence. The Dominican Republic even indicated at that time that the said brief had “the same juridical value” as its final written arguments, and that, “if there was a contradiction between its final arguments brief and [its brief of August 22, 2011], the position set out in the latter would prevail.” The representatives contested the admissibility of the “additional arguments that modify those that had been presented in the [State’s] final arguments brief.” In this regard, this Court notes that the time frame for the presentation of final written arguments cannot be extended, as established in the Order of the President of June 3, 2011, and that the period of 21 days established in Article 28(1) of the Rules of Procedure to present the duly signed briefs does not constitute an opportunity to amend them. Based on the foregoing, as well as on the principle of equality between the parties, the additional arguments presented by the State in its brief of August 22, 2011, that contradict or modify its final written argument are not admissible, and consequently will not be considered by the Court in its decision. 71. With their final written arguments, the representatives forwarded vouchers for the costs and expenses incurred following the presentation of the pleadings and motions brief. Therefore, the Court finds that the said documentary evidence complies with the formal requirements to be admitted as evidence on a supervening fact, in keeping with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, and incorporates it into the body of evidence to assess it, according to the rules of sound judicial discretion. Consequently, the Court also admits the observations on costs and expenses submitted by the State after its answering brief. 72. In addition, the representatives contested the Court’s request to the State for information regarding “the alleged destruction and alteration of documents,” on the basis 72 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 Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 52, para. 54. 73 These documents consist of “three judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice, admitting a remedy of cassation against […] decision[s] of the Review Chamber” in other cases. 24