of freedom of expression, and, since they were not recognized by the State, to the alleged violations of the rights to personal liberty, property, movement and to work. On the other hand, the Court does not consider it appropriate to rule, on this occasion, on the violations of the principle of legality and retroactivity, and of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, since these were expressly accepted by the State in its acknowledgment of international responsibility and have already been extensively developed in the case law of the Inter-American Court. V EVIDENCE A. Admission of documentary evidence 31. The Court received various documents, submitted as evidence by the Commission, the representatives and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra par. 5, 6 and 7). As in other cases, this Court admits those documents presented at the appropriate time (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure) 27 by the parties and the Commission, whose admissibility was neither disputed nor opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned. 28 32. In its answering brief, the State indicated that the representatives exceeded the term granted by the Court to correct defects found in the annexes 4(b) 29, 4(e) 30, 4(f) 31, 4(g) 32, 27 Documentary evidence can be presented, in general, and pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, together with the briefs of submission, pleadings and motions or answering briefs, as appropriate. Submission of evidence outside these procedural opportunities is not admissible, apart from exceptions established in the aforementioned Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (Force majeure or serious impediment) or when it relates to supervening facts, that is, occurring after the aforementioned procedural stage. 28 Cf. Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure; also, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par. 140, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 2, 2021. Series C No. 441, par. 31. Press release “Camilo Samán invited to show the link between the and the standoff by micro entrepreneurs in Guayaquil”, August 27, 2009. 29 30 Appeal Emilio Palacio U. Conviction of the Second Court of Criminal Guarantees of Guayas, March 26, 2010, Trial Nº 2009-1968. Appeal and Request for Extension Camilo Samán. Sentence of E. Palacio. Conviction of the Second Court of Criminal Guarantees of Guayas, March 26, 2010, Trial Nº 2009-1968. 31 Withdrawal proceedings of Camilo Samán Salem in the suit against Emilio Palacio Urrutia of June 4, 2010, and acceptance of June 21, 2010. 32 13