the requirements of justice.”15 Consequently, to be able to decide this case, the Court must have a minimum level of certainty about the existence of such persons. 25. In view of the foregoing and based on the particularities of this case, the Court will consider as victims those duly identified persons who have been named by the Commission on its lists annexed to the Merits Report and/or by the representatives on their lists attached to their pleading and motions brief, who have suffered any human rights violations derived from the massacre in the village of Los Josefinos regarding which the Court has jurisdiction ratione temporis (see infra Chapter IX). VI EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 26. This Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives of the alleged victims, and the State and, as in other cases, it admits them in the understanding that they were presented at the proper procedural moment (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure).16 27. The Court also received documents attached to the final written arguments presented by the State and by the representatives of the alleged victims.17 On April 22, 2021, the representatives of the alleged victims presented their observations on the documents presented by the State. They argued that the presentation of some of these documents was time-barred because they existed prior to the submission of the State’s answering brief, and added that some of them were unrelated to the facts and purpose of this case. Consequently, they asked the Court not to admit any of the documents. Meanwhile, the State did not comment on the documents presented by the alleged victims’ representatives. 28. The Court notes that the documents attached to the State’s final written arguments do indeed refer to facts that occurred prior to the procedural moment established in the Rules of Procedure for the presentation of evidence. Therefore, the said documents will not be admitted. Regarding the documents attached to the representatives’ final written arguments, the Court notes that the first annex refers to identity documents of individualized alleged victims. Finding this useful for deciding the case, the Court incorporates the said documents pursuant to Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. Additionally, the Court notes that the other two annexes – that is, a copy of procedural records and 15 Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 49. In general and based on Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, documentary evidence must be presented with the brief submitting the case or with the pleadings and motions brief or the answering brief, as applicable, and evidence forwarded outside these procedural occasions is not admissible, subject to the exceptions established in the said Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (namely, force majeure, grave impediment) or if it relates to a supervening event; that is, one that occurred after the said procedural moment. Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, paras. 17 and 18, and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of October 6, 2020. Series C No. 412, para. 43. 16 The State forwarded six annexes to its final written arguments: (1) Government Decision 99-2020 of the President of the Republic of Guatemala, dated July 30, 2020; (2) Public Prosecution Service, communication of January 29, 2021; (3) Public Prosecution Service, Communication of March 17, 2021; (4) Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance, communication of March 10, 2021; (5) Fondo de Tierras resolution, and (6) Public Prosecution Service, Communication of February 24, 2021. The representatives of the alleged victims attached three annexes to their final written arguments: (1) Copy of identity documents of victims named in Annex 3 of the pleading and motions brief of February 24, 2020; (2) Copy of procedural records of the procedures to take statements as advance evidence before the Public Prosecution Service, and (3) List of expenses incurred by FAMDEGUA and CEJIL following the presentation of the pleading and motions brief and resulting from this litigation. 17 10