in the aforementioned article of the Rules, namely, force majeure, serious impediment, or if it concerns a fact that occurred after the cited procedural moments. 18 In this regard, the Court notes, on the one hand, that the representative did not justify the presentation of the documents attached to the alleged victim’s statement and, on the other hand, that some of the documents attached to the statement concern the alleged victim’s claims for reparation. This Court does not admit these documents19 owing to their untimely submission. 41. In addition, the representative submitted four annexes together with his final written arguments, namely: again, Annexes 1 and 2,20 which had already been declared inadmissible, as well as Annex 3 (summary of the case scenario of Cap. Grijalva Bueno Vicente Aníbal) and Annex 4 (photograph of the certificate of accreditation as a “national hero” granted by the Council of Citizen Participation and Social Control). The Commission did not submit any observations. For its part, the State argued in its observations that “it goes without saying that Annexes 1 and 2 are inadmissible,” that Annex 3 is related to reparations, that it has been established that the procedural opportunity has expired and that Annex 4 refers to a fact that is outside the factual framework, and therefore should not be considered by the Court. Regarding the four documents whose admissibility was challenged by the State, the Court confirms that Annexes 1 and 2 had already been presented and declared inadmissible, a decision that is upheld. With respect to Annexes 3 and 4, this Court considers that these documents are not admissible because they relate to the alleged reparations in this case and, therefore, were presented extemporaneously. B. Admission of the alleged victim’s statement and expert evidence 42. In relation to the affidavit of Mr. Aníbal Vicente Grijalva Bueno, in its final arguments the State claimed that the alleged victim’s statement exceeded its purpose, because in several parts of it he refers to facts and situations unrelated to the instant case, as well as to his claims for compensation. The State added that in the remainder of his statement, the alleged victim recounted, on the one hand, the administrative process of discharge that was conducted against him, regarding which the State has acknowledged its international responsibility, and on which there is no dispute, and on the other hand, the criminal proceeding conducted in the military jurisdiction, with Cf. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 22, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419, para. 37. 19 Namely: 1) settlement for time of service in the Social Security Institute of the Armed Forces (ISSA); 2) letter requesting certification of contributions made to the ISSFA of July 21, 2010; 3) Official letter No. 100214-ISSFA-e1 of August 23, 2010; 4) Official letter No. PVPB-010 of May 13, 2010; 5) certificate of discounts to CPFG of the “National Navy” of November 15, 1995; 6) Income receipt N0. 85, Housing Cooperative “Armada Nacional” Housing Cooperative, June 2, 1992; 7) Ownership certificate, Ecuadorian Navy, “Punta Barabdua” Housing Program; 8) Circular No. PVPB-005-0 of August 23, 1990, Ecuadorian Navy, “Punta Barabdua” Housing Program; 9) Deed of purchase and sale, September 22, 1992, 25th Notary of the Canton of Guayaquil, and various documents of the Municipality of Guayaquil; 10) Details of loss of income from house rental at present value considering the annual inflation rate; 11) Birth certificates of Alex Vicente, Jennifer Zulay, Stefano Martín and Jamileth Adriana, all with the surnames Grijalva Ycaza, issued by the Civil Registry of Guayaquil, on December 19, 2019; 12) Details of operating expenses of Captain Vicente Aníbal Grijalva Bueno; 13) invoice from Cleveland Clinic Florida (19 documents), United States of America, October 18, 2019; 14) medical certificate issued by Dr. Mario Sandoval E., medical psychiatrist of October 28, 2019 for treatment provided to Mrs. María Dolores Ycaza Columbus, and 15) Photos of July 16, 2020, showing evidence of the removal of a plaque with a public apology. 20 The representative submitted two annexes with the observations to the preliminary objection and partial acquiescence, namely: Annex 1, “Brief list of persons involved in human rights violations against Captain Vicente Grijalva Bueno,” and Annex 2 referring to the “Table of compensation values in the cases of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador and Flor Freire v. Ecuador.” These were not admitted on this occasion, pursuant to the communication of this Secretariat of August 7, 2021. 18 12