majeure, serious impediment, or when it refers to events which occurred after the procedural moments indicated. 40. Thus, the Court notes that the State submitted several documents together with its final written arguments. The representatives argued that all these documents were inadmissible and that several of them were time-barred, which the State failed to justify based on any of those exceptional circumstances and, moreover, that the documents had been available to the State prior to submitting its answer to the application. The Commission also asked the Court to reject some of these documents because they were time-barred, but without specifying which documents it was referring to. In this regard, the Court considers that it is not appropriate to admit those documents presented by the State with its final written arguments that were not submitted at the proper procedural stage.42 41. Regarding the attachments submitted by the representatives together with their observations on the preliminary objection, the Court observes that in the pleadings and motions brief, the representatives indicated that “the [Sarayaku] People [were] conducting a census [and that] this would be provided to the […] Court as soon as it was available.” Therefore, the Court considers the said study admissible, in the understanding that it was not yet available and also that it had been mentioned in the pleadings and motions brief. Regarding the other attachments presented by the representatives with their observations on the preliminary objection, the Court will only admit those documents that relate to supervening events. 42. The representatives also submitted vouchers for litigation expenses related to the present case with their final written arguments. The Court will only consider those documents that refer to requests for costs and expenses that the representatives claim were incurred during the proceedings before this Court, after the date on which the pleadings and motions brief was presented. C. Admission of the statements of presumed victims and the testimonial and expert evidence 43. The Court finds if pertinent to admit the testimony and opinions provided by the presumed victims and expert witnesses at the public hearing and by affidavit, to the extent that they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the Order requiring them (supra para. 11) and the purpose of this case. They will be assessed in the corresponding chapter, together with the other elements of the body of evidence.43 In accordance with this Court’s case law, the statements offered by the presumed victims cannot be assessed in isolation, but must be examined together with all the evidence in the proceedings, because they are useful insofar as they can provide further information on the alleged violations and their consequences.44 They will be assessed in the corresponding chapter, together with the other elements of the body of evidence and taking into account the observations made by the parties.45 44. Together with its final list of deponents, the State forwarded a document entitled “Notarized Anthropological Report,” signed by Boris Aguirre Palma who was originally offered as an expert witness by the State in its answer to the application. When sending it, the State indicated that it was doing so “on the purpose approved by the Court.” As can be seen from the Order of the President of June 17, 2011, this expert opinion had not been required by the Court or by its President. The said document, signed by Mr. Aguirre Palma, forwarded by the State as an expert opinion, was not presented as documentary evidence at the appropriate procedural moment, and it was not produced 42 The attachments to the State’s brief with final arguments that will not be considered because they are time-barred are: 1 to 5, 13 to 17, 28, 32 and 39 to 45. 43 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of Pacheco Teruel v. Honduras, para. 13. 44 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits, para. 43, and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina, para. 13. 45 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits, para. 43, and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina, para. 13. 14