not argue the failure to exhaust domestic remedies in relation to the action of unconstitutionality, or present any evidence that this would have been appropriate and effective. Indeed, the Court notes that the State filed this preliminary objection for the first time in its answering brief; that is, at a procedural moment long after it had been advised of those facts. Therefore, the presentation of this preliminary objection is timebarred and, consequently, it is rejected by the Court. V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 26. The Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives and the State and, as in other cases, it admits them in the understanding that they were presented at the appropriate procedural moment (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure). 18 27. The Court also received documents attached to the final written arguments presented by the alleged victims’ representatives. 19 With regard to the document attached as Annex I, the Court admits this because it finds it useful for the correct identification of one of the alleged victims, and in application of the provisions of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. Regarding the documents attached as Annex II, the Court notes that these were issued after the presentation of the principal briefs and, therefore, they constitute evidence of supervening facts. Consequently, those documents are admissible pursuant to of Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. B. Admissibility of the testimonial and expert evidence 28. The Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements made during the public hearing, 20 and also the affidavits received, 21 insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them. 22 18 The documentary evidence may be presented, in general and according to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, together with the briefs submitting the case or with pleadings, motions and evidence, or the answering brief, as applicable, and evidence forwarded outside these procedural opportunities is not admissible, subject to the exceptions established in the said Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (namely, force majeure or grave impediment) or if it refers to a supervening fact; that is, one that occurred following the said procedural moments. 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 the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru, supra, para. 35. 19 Annex I: identity card of Ronald Chacón Chaverri (known as Ronald Moya Chacón), and Annex II: documents authenticating litigation expenses in the context of these proceedings dated November 9, 2020, and February and March 2, 2022. During the public hearing, the Court received the statements of alleged victim Ronald Moya Chacón and expert witnesses Rafael Ángel Sanabria Rojas and Joan Barata Mir. 20 The Court received affidavits made by alleged victim Freddy Parrales Chaves, witness Armando Manuel González Rodicio, and expert witness Javier Dall’Anese Ruiz, proposed by the representatives. 21 22 The purpose of all these statements was established in the order of the acting President of the InterAmerican Court of December 13, 2021. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/moya_chacon_13_12_2021.pdf 9