decides not to admit this documentation, because its presentation does not meet the requirements of Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 134. Documents presented with the final written arguments. 91 The State and the representatives presented documents with their final written arguments, and the Court will only admit those that were sent in order to respond to the questions asked by the judges during the hearing, with the exception of those that the Court refers to below. 135. Observations of the State on the annexes presented with the representatives’ final arguments. On January 17, 2014, the State presented its observations on the documents attached to the representatives’ final written arguments (supra para. 18). On that occasion, the State also included other observations on one presumed victim and on the representatives’ final written arguments that were not admissible because the State’s brief was not a new opportunity to present allegations. Therefore, the Court will only consider the State’s observations on the documents presented by the representatives with their final written arguments that had not been incorporated into the proceedings previously 92 and, with regard to these documents, will examine the objections raised by the Dominican Republic. Regarding some expense vouchers, the State’s objections will be analyzed below (infra para. 139). In addition, as regards the “Concluding observations on the thirteenth and fourteenth periodic reports of the Dominican Republic [(advance or unedited version)], of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,” it asked the Court to declare this document inadmissible, “because it was submitted outside the time frame established in Article 40[.2.b)] of the Rules of Procedure [and] did not qualify as supervening evidence under Article 57[.2] of the Rules of Procedure,” because the representatives had not justified its presentation. In this regard, the representatives asked the Court to include this document in the case file as supervening “evidence,” because it had been issued after the presentation of the motions and arguments brief on October 30, 2012. Based on the arguments of the parties and having verified that this report were issued by the said Committee after the presentation of the motions and arguments brief, the Court incorporates it into the body of evidence, as supervening evidence. 136. The representatives’ observations on the annexes presented with the final arguments of the State. In their observations, the representatives alleged that the State, in its final arguments, had listed a series of documents related to the judgment issued by the Constitutional Court on September 23, 2013, which were not presented although, in some cases, an electronic link where they could be found was indicated. Consequently, they indicated that “those documents that were announced, but not presented and no link to a website was given where they could be located, cannot be considered part of the body of evidence.” They added, with regard to the documents that could be located, because the link had been indicated, that “they merely reflect the State’s position with regard to the 91 The Court recalls that the final arguments are essentially an opportunity to systematize factual and legal arguments presented at the appropriate moment, and not a stage to present new facts and/or additional legal arguments, because the other parties would be unable to respond to them. Consequently, the Court stipulates that it will only consider in its decision the final written arguments that are strictly related to the evidence and legal arguments that have already been provided at the appropriate procedural moment, or to the helpful evidence requested by a judge or the Court and, if applicable, to the exceptions established in Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure, which, if necessary, will be indicated in this Judgment in the corresponding section. To the contrary, any new pleading presented in the final written arguments will be inadmissible, as time-barred, save for the exceptions under Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure. 92 The documents provided by the representatives with their final written arguments included the following, as identified by the representatives: (a) “[c]opy of the photograph of Abelardo Medina shown to Willian Medina during the public hearing,” and (b) “[h]istorical documents provided by [expert witness] Bridget Wooding.” These documents had already been incorporated into the proceedings; thus the State had been able to refer to them in its final arguments. 40