repeated. Owing to the comprehensive acknowledgement made by the State, the Court considers that the legal dispute in this case has ceased with regard to the facts and the merits, and the legal dispute persists only with regard to nonpecuniary measures of reparation. 23. Based on the violations acknowledged by the State and the requests of the parties and the Commission, the Court considers it necessary to deliver a judgment in which it determines the facts that occurred based on the evidence provided in the proceedings before it and their recognition by the State, as doing so contributes to providing victims with reparations, preventing similar facts from being repeated, and, essentially, fulfilling the purpose of the inter-American human rights jurisdiction.10 24. Nevertheless, on this occasion, the Court does not find it necessary to conduct a detailed discussion of all the points that were the purpose of the litigation, in view of the State’s broad recognition of international responsibility and because the rights claims made and recognized in this case have already been subjected to jurisprudential development by the Inter-American Court. V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 25. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representative, and the State, which, as in other cases, it admits in the understanding that they were presented at the appropriate procedural moment (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure).11 26. Additionally, the representative attached a series of documents in an annex to her observations on both the State’s recognition of responsibility and on its final arguments.12 The Court notes that this documentation is inadmissible on being time-barred. Cf. Case of Tu Tojin v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 26, and Case of Fernández Prieto and Tumbeiro v. Argentina. Argentina, supra, para. 21. 10 Documentary evidence, in general and pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, may be presented with the application brief, the pleadings and motions brief, or the answering brief, as applicable, and evidence submitted outside these procedural opportunities cannot be admitted, except in the event of the exceptions stated in the aforementioned Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (namely, force majeure, serious impediment) or it refers to an event which occurred after the procedural moments indicated. Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, paras. 17 and 18; and Case of Olivares Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 10, 2020. Series C No. 415, para. 39. 11 Along with her observations on the recognition, the representative submitted a copy of several pages of a judgment by the National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court 3 in case 14,216/03, titled “Suárez Mason Carlos y otros sobre privación ilegal de la libertad,” in which Mr. Almeida's testimony is mentioned (evidence file, folios 13971402); copy of the motion field by the General Director of Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights in case file CUDAP S04:0054313/2012 (file on the merits, folios 1404-1413); copy of technical report 294/14 of December 22, 2014, filed by the Coordinator of law 24,043 of the Secretariat on Human Rights before the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights in the framework of casefile S04:005413/12 (evidence file, folios 1414-1418); copy of the Resolution of the Federal Contentious-Administrative Court (Chamber IV) of October 17, 2017, in the framework of case file 29,745/2017/CA1 (evidence file, folios 1419-1430); copy of resolution of April 17, 2018, whereby the Supreme Court of the Nation declared inadmissible the special motion brought in the framework of case file 29,745/2017/RH1 (evidence file, folio 1431); copy of Court Order IF-2018-30923206-APN-DGAJ#MJ of June 29, 2018 (evidence file, folios 1434-1435), and motion filed before the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of November 5, 2019, in the framework of case file S04:55830/2016 (evidence file, folios 1436-1456). 12 Additionally, along with her final arguments, the representative submitted as evidence the legal report of an amparo motion for unreasonable delay (evidence file, folios 1538-1545); copy of Law 26,913 on the Reparations Regime for Former Political Prisoners of the Argentine Republic of November 27, 2013 (evidence file, folios 1546-1548); motion for reconsideration of dismissal of appeal filed by J.A.B. before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (evidence 7