16. Consequently, the Court will not examine the alleged human rights violations in relation to Arianny Yosibel González, Laura Joselin González, Alejandro González, Fernando González (brother of Olimpiades), Doménica Del Carmen Hernández, Yelimar Coromoto Barliza Hernández, Wilder Thomas Castillo Hernández and Dan William Barliza. Nor will it consider those named as possible beneficiaries of measures of reparation. V EVIDENCE A) Admissibility of the documentary evidence 17. The Court received diverse documents offered, with their principal briefs, as evidence by the Commission and by the representatives (supra paras. 3, 7 and 8). As in other cases, the Court admits the documents that were presented opportunely (Article 57 of the Rules) by the parties and by the Commission, the admissibility of which were neither disputed nor objected to and the authenticity of which was not contested.13 18. The Court observes that the State, together with its final written arguments, provided three documents.14 The representatives, together with their final written allegations, provided diverse documentation joined in one annex. 15 The Commission did not make any observations on the documentation presented by the parties together with their final written allegations nor did the State make any observations. The representatives simply noted that the documentation presented by the State had already been incorporated into the record of the case. 19. The Court notes that the documents provided by the representatives with their final written allegations refer to the accreditation of the expenses relating to the Victims’ Legal Defense Fund of the Inter-American Court (infra paras. 218 and 219) that were disbursed after the presentation of their brief with petitions and motions. Therefore, it admits that documentation. 20. As to the documents provided by the State together with its final written arguments, the Court notes that two of them have already been incorporated into the evidentiary record and, therefore, it is not necessary or relevant to evaluate their admissibility.16 The third document, which the State provided as “Annex 2)” to its brief Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140 and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, para. 33. Documentary evidence may be presented, in general and in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules, together with the brief of submission of the case, the brief with petitions and motions and the answering brief, as applicable. Evidence presented beyond those procedural moments is not admissible, except in situations defined in that article (namely, force majeur or serious impediment) or if it concerns a supervening event; that is, one occurring after the aforementioned procedural moments. 13 They are the following: Decision of the Technical Corps of the Judicial Police Delegation of the State of Zulia of November 23, 1998 (Annex 1); Minutes the Technical Corps of the Judicial Police Delegation of November 23, 1998 (Annex 2), and Minutes of the Technical Corps of the Judicial Police Delegation of January 29, 1999 (Annex 3). 14 This document is a receipt of the expenses incurred for the expert opinion of Víctor Velasco Prieto, which accredits his affiliation with the Institute of Social Security of Venezuela and the Sole Registry of Tax Information of that country. 15 Regarding the decision of the Technical Corps of the Judicial Police Delegation of November 23, 1998 (Annex 1) and the Minutes of the Technical Corps of January 29, 1999 (Annex 3). 16 7