14 terms of Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure. Moreover, the State forwarded the application filed by the members of the Association of Discharged and Retired Employees, dated May 27, 1993, as well as Order Nº 63 of the 4º Specialized Civil Court of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima, dated January 24, 2005 and a case-file of the case-law of the Constitutional Court of Perú regarding its criteria of interpretation and enforcement of judgments. The Court notes that said evidence was untimely presented within the procedure before the Tribunal and that it is not related to supervening facts. Nevertheless, considering that those are documents that are related to the domestic procedure of this case and relevant case-law for the determination of the procedural rules applicable to the enforcement of the judgments, subject-matter of this controversy, the Tribunal considers that such evidence is relevant and necessary to decide the facts of the case at hand. Therefore, considering that such item of evidence was not challenged by the other parties (supra para. 10), the Tribunal admits it, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure in order assess it together with the rest of the body of evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. 38. Likewise, the representatives submitted, together with the brief of final arguments, the following documentary evidence, which has not been forwarded at the appropriate procedural opportunity, in accordance with Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure: a) in Appendix 2, the “Judgment of the Commission on Budget and General Account of the Republic regarding Bill N° 2029/2007-PE” of December 16, 2008; b) in Appendix 4, "Judicial Order N° 152 of July 19, 2006”; c) in Appendix 5, “Official Letter N° 692-2007-JUZ/CNDH-SE” of April 26, 2007; d) in Appendix 6, “Official Letter N° 247-2006-CG/RH” of June 17, 2006, and e) in Appendix 7, a copy of the “statements of the Head of the SUNAT ([published in two Peruvian] newspapers, PERÚ 21 and GESTION of January 17, 2009)”. In this regard, the Court notes that said evidence was untimely submitted within this proceeding and that, except for the "Judgment of the Commission on Budget” of December 16, 2008, it does not relate to supervening facts. The Tribunal admits as supervening evidence the already mentioned “Judgment of the Commission on Budget” of December 16, 2008, in accordance with Article 44(3) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, since such item of evidence was not challenged by the parties (supra para. 10) and is relevant for the determination of the facts of the case. Furthermore, the Court deems that the other documents17 refer to the alleged lack of enforcement of the judgments that are subject-matter of this case, for they are relevant and necessary to determine the facts of the case at hand and therefore, the Court admits them, under Article 45(1) of its Rules of Procedure, in order to assess them together with the rest body of evidence on the basis of sound judgment. 39. In relation to the press clippings furnished by the representatives in Appendix 7 of the final written arguments, this Tribunal shall assess them insofar as they contain public and well-known facts or statements of State officers, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case.18 * 40. * * Upon examining the evidence contained in the records of the instant case, 17 In Appendix 4, the “Judicial Order Nº 152 of July 19, 2006”; in Appendix 5, the “Official Letter Nº 692-2007-JUZ/CNDH-SE”, of April 26, 2007”; in Appendix 6, the “Official Letter Nº 2472006-CG/RH" of June 17, 2006 and in Appendix 7, a copy of the "statements of the Head of SUNAT ([published in two] [Peruvian] newspapers, PERÚ 21 and GESTION, on January 17, 2009"). 18 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, para. 146; Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 13, para. 43; and Case of Perozo et al., supra note 13, para. 101.