admission. To prove said assertion, the representatives forwarded a certification obtained from “Dropbox” in order to demonstrate that 113 files were downloaded by the Secretariat of the Court. Due to the representatives’ request, the Secretariat of the Court proceeded to carry out an internal computer investigation, which confirmed that said files entered the Court's server, but they presented computer errors that did not allow them to be incorporated into the folder containing the evidence file of the case. This information was communicated to the parties and the Commission by letter dated September 17, 2020. 35. In relation to the above, this Court notes that the representatives, through the letter from the Secretariat of August 25, 2020, learned that annexes 7, 10, 16, 18, 31, 32, 37 and 39 had been considered as not presented, and that annex 4, in its paragraphs 4(b), 4(e), 4(f), 4(g), 4(j), 4(l), 4(r) were faulty, for which a period until August 27, 2020 was granted to correct the problems that could exist regarding said annexes. These annexes, however, were forwarded on August 28, 2020, by the representatives. In this regard, in accordance with Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court considers that their transfer was outside the time limit, and therefore they are inadmissible. 36. Additionally, the Court notes that annex 11 to the motions and pleadings brief was not included among those that were considered missing or faulty and were requested from the representatives in the letter of August 25, 2020. Furthermore, the Court notes that the representatives were also unable to be informed that said appendix had not entered the body of evidence because the information they had did not allow them to verify that it contained errors. In this sense, the remittance of said annex was requested by the Secretariat, initially, by means of a letter dated September 17, 2020. The Court notes that said annex was forwarded in accordance with the term granted to the representatives and, therefore, Pursuant to Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure, is admissible. 37. The State also forwarded three annexes to its final written arguments, which contain information related to the following: a) the migratory movements of Messrs. Pérez Lapentti and Pérez Barriga; b) the brief of February 27, 2012, by means of which Rafael Correa Delgado pardoned the sentence and the remission of the payment of damages in favor of the presumed victims; and c) the document in which the Criminal Chamber of the National Court of Justice accepted the request for a pardon of the sentence and the remission of the payment of damages. The representatives requested that said evidence be inadmissible because it was irrelevant and unnecessary. In this regard, the Court recalls that the final written arguments do not constitute a new procedural opportunity to offer evidence, except for the exceptions provided for in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, that is: force majeure, serious impediment or supervening facts. The presentation of the annexes is not justified with respect to any of the three assumptions mentioned above, and is therefore inadmissible. 38. Similarly, the representatives forwarded “information that was relevant to the analysis of this case.” In particular, they referred to information published by the state media outlet "Televisión de Ecuador", which issued an apology regarding the attacks on media outlets carried out from 2008 to 2021, which includes a reference to the El Universo newspaper and the case of Mr. Palacio Urrutia. The State indicated that said evidence intends to incorporate issues that occurred prior to the public hearing, and that were not aired during the process. Based on the foregoing, it requested that said evidence be excluded from the body of evidence in the case. In this regard, the Court notes that the information presented by the representatives constitutes a supervening fact as the act of public apology carried out by the media outlet "Televisión de Ecuador", which refers to the specific situation of the facts that are object of analysis of the case, 15