State's arguments in relation to an improper inclusion of Articles 5 and 11 of the Convention in the motions and pleadings brief are inadmissible. V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of documental evidence 34. The Court received various documents, presented in evidence by the Commission, the alleged victim, and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra paragraphs 3, 6, and 7). As in other cases, this Court admits those documents presented in a timely manner (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure) 11 by the parties and the Commission, admissibility of which was neither disputed nor opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned 12. 35. The Court also received documents attached to the final written arguments presented by the State and by the alleged victim 13 (supra paragraph 11). On April 26 and 27, 2021, the presumed victim and the State, respectively, submitted observations on these documents and the presumed victim submitted an attached document 14. The State argued that the annexes to the final written arguments of the alleged victim were submitted extemporaneously and that, in this case, none of the exceptions provided for in Article 57(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure appear and for that reason, it requested they be declared inadmissible. The presumed victim presented general observations on the documents presented by the State, and the InterAmerican Commission, and indicated that she had no observations on the documents provided by the parties. The Court notes that the documents attached to the final written arguments of the State and the presumed victim and the document attached to the presumed victim's observations were not offered at the appropriate procedural opportunity and that, in this case, none of the exceptions defined in the regulations for the late admission of evidence exists. For that reason, these documents will not be accepted. 36. On March 18 and April 22, 2021, the State was requested to send additional clarifying documentation. The State, by means of briefs filed with the Secretariat of the Court on March 24, April 12 and May 4, forwarded the requested information, which was brought to the attention of the presumed victim and the Inter-American Commission, who had the opportunity to present observations (supra paragraph 10). These documents were incorporated into the body of evidence. B. Admissibility of testimonial and expert evidence The documentary evidence may be presented, in general and in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, together with the case’s submitting, requests and arguments or answering briefs, as appropriate. The evidence submitted outside of these procedural opportunities is not admissible, except for the exceptions established in the aforementioned article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (force majeure or serious impediment) or if it is a supervening event, that is, occurred after the aforementioned procedural moments. 11 Cf. Article 57 of Rules of Procedure; also Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru, supra, para. 20. 13 The State submitted two annexes to its final written arguments: (i) Evaluation Form. Non-hierarchical personnel - Moya Solís Norka, of July 1, 1976; and (ii) Corrida Resolution No. 000495-2020-CE-PJ, of December 29, 2020. The alleged victim attached four documents to her final written arguments: (i) Appeal for Reconsideration and Administrative Order No. 10-82- TRCCLL of July 26, 1982; (ii) Supreme Decree that increases the minimum living wage. Supreme Decree No. 005-201 6-TR; (iii) Table of evolution of the minimum living wage, November 1962 - February 2013; and (iv) Title of Judicial Clerk, granted by the Superior Court of Lima on January 4, 1983. 12 14 1981. The alleged victim attached a work certificate issued by the Personnel Director of the Judiciary on April 24, 10