- 13 procedure before the Commission (annex 1 of the Merits Report), it would “provide rulings subsequent to the date of that note.” Nevertheless, those rulings were not presented with the answering brief; rather the State submitted them during the public hearing of the case without offering an explanation about their time-barred submission. The Court recalls that, pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the appropriate procedural moment for the presentation of documentary evidence is with the briefs submitting the case, with pleadings and motions, or answering the submission of the case, as applicable. Evidence forwarded outside the appropriate procedural moments is not admissible, except in the cases established in the above-mentioned Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure; namely, force majeure, serious impediment or if it relates to a fact that took place after the said procedural moments. It was not demonstrated that any of the foregoing exceptions applied in this case; therefore the Court considers inadmissible the documentation relating to the applications for amparo that the State submitted during the public hearing. 38. Similarly, both the State and the representatives presented documentation with their final written arguments.37 For the reasons given above, pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court admits the documents issued following the said procedural moments. Specifically, it admits the note of March 3, 2015, of the Personnel Management Directorate provided by the State, as well as the documentation provided by the representatives concerning expenses incurred after the submission of the pleadings and motions brief, and the circular of the Council of the Judiciary and the Judicial Service of February 11, 2015. However, the State failed to justify the late submission of the document entitled “Procedure to impose sanctions on judicial officials and employees,” and did not explain its origin or nature; therefore, the Court does not find it admissible. B.2) Admission of the testimonial and expert evidence 39. The Court also finds it pertinent to admit the statements of the presumed victims and witnesses and the expert opinions provided during the public hearing and by affidavit, insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them and the purpose of this case. C. Assessment of the evidence 40. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, and on its consistent case law concerning evidence and its assessment,38 the Court will examine and assess the documentary and probative elements forwarded by the parties and the Commission, the statements, testimony, and expert opinions, and also the helpful evidence that was requested and that the Court has incorporated into the case file in order to establish the facts of the case and to rule on the merits. To this end, it will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework, taking into account all the evidence and arguments that have been presented.39 37 The State presented: (1) a note of March 3, 2015, from the Personnel Management Directorate, in reply to a request by the President of the Court in his order of December 10, 2014, that it present “information on the salary increases that would have corresponded to the projected salaries of the presumed victims if they had not been removed from their posts, based on the salaries of judges and justices who are in the same salary range of each of the presumed victims in this case when they were dismissed,” as well as (2) a document entitled “Procedure to impose sanctions on judicial officials and employees” (merits file, folios 1818 to 1825). In addition to the documentation on expenses incurred since the pleadings and motions brief, the representatives presented a copy of a circular of the Council of the Judiciary and the Judicial Service dated February 11, 2015 (merits file, folio 1686). 38 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No 37, paras. 69 to 76, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 16. 39 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, paras. 69 to 76, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 16.