16 order to facilitate the adjudication of the case (supra para. 10), the Court admits them into the body of evidence, pursuant to the provisions of Article 47(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 28. On the other hand, the Court shall examine, first, the observations made by Mexico about some documents submitted in the petition and in the written brief of pleadings and motions; then the Court shall rule on the documents submitted by the representatives and the State after their written briefs of pleadings and motions and the response to the petition, respectively. 29. The State requested that “any exhibit or certificate that the C[omission] or the petitioners had attached to their respective briefs, related with this proceedings, be compared with the certified records [of the criminal proceedings]” in order “to avoid taking the facts or acts related to the proceedings out of context.” The State indicated that “any record referring to the criminal proceedings which does not form part of the records thereof shall be considered as a mere interpretation or personal opinion.” Regarding this matter, the Court notes that the State did not challenge the admission of evidence and considers that the pleading on the scope of the documentation that is not included in the domestic criminal file is a matter related to the burden of the proof of such documentation, a matter to be decided in the merits taking into account the allegations made by the State and the remaining evidence on file. 30. The State requested the Court “to grant the corresponding value to any publications and individual reports based on international standards seeking that such content abides by the fair dimension of the matter in this case.” This Tribunal notes that the State did not challenge the admission of such reports of individuals and shall consider the results thereof together with the rest of the body of evidence. 31. As regards the documents submitted by the representatives related to “the ecological or ecologist issue,” the State requested the Court “to keep to the main reason of the case, which would be to corroborate that the actions of the Mexican authorities were taken in accordance with the international standards in human rights.” Furthermore, the State “question[ed] the consideration of the evidence and other elements foreign to the case” and requested that any “evidence” about “either the general situation of human rights in Guerrero or the situation or activities” of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel “as ecologists or in other matters” “should be fully rejected.” The Court notes that it is appropriate to determine as a prior consideration of this Judgment (infra para. 60) whether the facts related to these documents form part of the object of this case. To that end, the Court shall take into account the State’s arguments as well as the rest of the body of evidence. 32. On the other hand, as regards the documents submitted by the representatives and the State after the forwarding of the briefs of pleadings and motions and the response to the petition, respectively, the Court considered it is timely to recall that article 46 of the Rules of Procedure, governing the admission of evidence, establishes that: 1. Items of evidence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if they are offered in the application of the Commission, in the brief of pleadings and motions of the alleged victims, in the answer to the application and observations to the pleadings and motions filed by the State or, when appropriate, in the document setting out the preliminary objections and the answer thereto. […] 3. Should any of the parties allege force majeure, serious impediment, or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for producing an item of