8 31. On May 15, 2001, the State submitted its brief of comments on reparations and costs, which the Secretariat had requested back on February 20, 2001, in keeping with the September 13, 2000 Order of the President of the Court (supra paragraphs 3 and 10). The deadline for submitting that brief expired on April 26, 2001. Therefore, the brief was received 19 days after the deadline. By the standard established by the Court in its own case law,11 the period of time that elapsed cannot be considered reasonable. In the instant case, the delay was not due to a simple error in computing the due date. The imperatives of legal security and procedural equality require that deadlines be met,12 unless exceptional circumstances make that impossible. That did not happen in the instant case. Consequently, because it was time-barred, the Court is not admitting into evidence the State’s brief of May 15, 2001, and will refrain from addressing its contents. Therefore, the evidence tendered by the State with the brief of comments on the requested reparations (supra paragraph 25) is also considered to have been submitted extemporaneously. 32. Concerning the written psychological report on Mr. Cantoral Benavides, submitted by Ana Luiza Loureiro de Vasconcellos (supra paragraph 9); the documents tendered by the victim’s representatives and the State with reference to the average salaries of office workers and professional biologists in Peru (supra paragraph 16), and the “Report prepared by the Committee to Study and Review Legislation Enacted since April 5, 1992,” tendered by the State (supra paragraph 14), the Court considers them helpful elements within the body of evidence and adds them to that body of evidence, in accordance with Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 33. The Court is admitting the tendered testimonial and expert evidence only to the extent that it is relevant to the stated purpose of the line of questioning and the opinion. 34. Finally, it is important to recall that the body of evidence in a case is an indivisible whole, composed of the pieces of evidence tendered during all phases of the proceeding.13 V FACTS PROVEN 35. To determine the reparations measures appropriate in the instant case, the Court’s reference point will be the facts established as proven in the judgment on the merits delivered on August 18, 2000. In the present phase of the proceedings, the parties have tendered new pieces of evidence for the purpose of demonstrating the presence of other factors relevant to determining the proper measures of reparation 11 Cf. Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case, supra note 3, paragraph 159; Baena Ricardo et al. Case, Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paragraph 50; and “The Last Temptation of Christ” Case (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, November 9, 1999, consideranda No. 4. 12 Cf. Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case, supra note 3, paragraph 159; and “The Last Temptation of Christ” Case (Olmedo Bustos et al.), supra note 11, consideranda No. 4. 13 Cf. Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case, supra note 3, paragraph 98; The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra, note 2, paragraph 53; and Blake Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 22, 1999. Series C No. 48, paragraph 28.