13 objection filed by the State, and will therefore rule on the merits of the matter in the corresponding section. V EVIDENCE A. Admission of the documentary evidence 38. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives and the State, attached to their main briefs and as helpful evidence (supra paras. 6, 7, 8 and 14). In this case, as in others, 28 the Court admits those documents forwarded by the Commission and the parties at the appropriate procedural opportunity (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure),29 together with those submitted by the State at the request of the Court as helpful evidence, pursuant to Article 58(b), which were not contested or opposed30 and the authenticity of which was not challenged. Nevertheless, it will offer some pertinent considerations. 39. Together with their final written arguments, the representatives forwarded three documents and two videos related to the physical and mental health of Mr. Muelle Flores as well as some of the expenses incurred. The Court notes that the State presented observations and objected to some of the annexes forwarded by the representatives. However, this Court will refer only to the arguments presented by the State regarding the admissibility of the documentary evidence. In this regard, the State held that Annex I, concerning the certificate issued by the Air Force Hospital, “[was] blurred and illegible” and lacked the formality of the “signature of the head of section of the F.A.P Central Hospital.” The Court finds that the document is legible and that it is signed by the attending physician, which it considers sufficient for its admission. Moreover, the document was issued after the representatives’ pleadings and motions brief, in relation to a supervening fact. Consequently, the Court admits this document, pursuant to Article 57(2) of its Rules of Procedure. 40. The State also argued that the representatives’ transcription of the text of the medical certificate provided by the surgeon who performed the surgical intervention on Mr. Oscar Muelle Flores’ femoral hip fracture, “[was] not of a formal nature, since it ha[d] not been transcribed and signed by the attending physician; therefore, it was not an appropriate document.” In this regard, the Court decides to admit the transcription of the representatives since it considers that its aim is to clarify, in a reliable manner, the content of the official medical certificate enclosed in the evidence forwarded by them, which includes the corresponding formalities. B. Admission of the testimonial and expert evidence 41. The Court deems it pertinent to admit the testimony and expert opinions provided by affidavit, only insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the Order requiring Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 140, and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 59. 29 In general, documentary evidence may be presented in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, together with the briefs submitting the case, the pleadings and motions brief or the answer brief, as applicable. Evidence forwarded outside those procedural opportunities is not admissible, except in the circumstances established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (namely, force majeure, serious impediment) or if it involves a supervening fact, i.e. an event that occurred after the procedural moments indicated. Cf. Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, paras. 17 and 18, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2019. Series C No. 373, para. 14. 28 30 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 140, and Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2018. Series C No. 368, para.64.