31. Regarding the procedural opportunity for submitting documentary evidence, according to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, in general, this must be presented together with the briefs submitting the case, with motions and pleadings, or answering the submission of the case, as applicable. Evidence remitted outside the proper procedural opportunities is not admissible, unless it relates to the exceptions established in the said Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure: namely, force majeure, serious impediment, or if it refers to a fact that has occurred following these procedural moments. 32. The State contested the admissibility of the documents presented by the Commission with its Merits Report that did not come from public institutions or individuals with authority to certify documents, because it was not possible to confirm the truth of the facts they contained due to the absence of sources that proved them. 20 Regarding the documents presented by the representatives with their motions and pleadings brief, the State contested the admissibility of Annex 12 on the calculation of Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán’s loss of earnings, considering that it had not been proved that the victim’s father had suffered from any physical or mental illness owing to the facts of this case which would have prevented him from exercising his profession and working regularly following his daughter’s death. It also contested the press releases issued in 2006 and 2007 contained in Annex 31, considering that they were not a reliable means of presenting the facts objectively. In addition, it contested the admissibility of Annex 36 on the psychological assessment of the next of kin of Claudina Velásquez Paiz because, according to the State, the appraisal was biased. In this regard, the Court finds that the State’s arguments relate to the probative weight and scope of the contested evidence, but does not affect its admissibility as part of the body of evidence. Therefore, the Court finds it in order to admit the said documents. Regarding the press releases submitted, the Court has considered that they may be evaluated when they refer to well-known public events or to declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case. 21 33. Meanwhile, the representatives contested the evidence presented by the State on March 25, 2015 (supra para. 11), considering that it contravened Article 41 of the Rules of Procedure, because “[t]he State ha[d] ample time to include evidence on the investigative actions and procedures.” In this regard, in the order of March 19, 2015 (supra para. 10), the President of the Court had asked the State to forward “the file documents containing the procedural actions taken from May 2012 to date” as helpful evidence. Accordingly, the evidence provided by the State in response to the request made under Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure, which authorizes the Court to ask the parties to provide evidence at any stage of the case, was admitted 34. The State forwarded five annexes with its final written arguments. The Court noted that these documents were sent in response to questions that the judges had asked the State during the public hearing. Neither the Commission nor the representatives contested their admissibility. Therefore, pursuant to Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court admits these documents. B.2. Admission of the testimonial and expert evidence 35. The Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements of the presumed victims and witnesses, and also the expert opinions provided during the public hearing and by affidavit that were not contested, insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them (supra para. 10). In particular, the State contested Annexes 33, 34.a and 34.b, 35, 36 and 37 to the Commission’s Merits Report. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 146, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 32. 20 21 13