is relevant to the specific case; 88 thus the said report of the Inter-American Commission (infra footnote 132), which is also a public document that has been referred to by the representatives in the case sub judice and regarding which the State has been able to comment, is admissible as evidence in this sense. Consequently, the Court incorporates both these documents. 126. Evidence of supervening facts. Under Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court admits as evidence of supervening facts (supra para. 13 and infra para. 146), the documents containing the following: judgment TC/0168/13, Decree No. 327-13, Law No. 169-14, and Decree No. 250-14. It also admits other documents presented by the parties under this heading that will be described below. 127. Photographs. During the public hearing, the State presented, for the first time, several photographs that, according to the State, corresponded to several siblings and to the father of Willian Medina, which it showed to Mr. Medina Ferreras, questioning him about them. 89 The Court recalls that evidence must be presented in keeping with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. In this case, the State did not justify its presentation outside the appropriate procedural moment, so that the Court considers its presentation time-barred, and it cannot be admitted as evidence. 128. Video. During the public hearing on October 8 and 9, 2013 (supra para. 12), the State showed a video concerning Willian Medina Ferreras in which someone, who says he is an official of the Central Electoral Board, appears interviewing several individuals who state that they are descendants of the alleged parents of Mr. Medina Ferreras. In this regard, the State indicated that the presentation consisted of two videos which were both shown. One was recorded “on September 26, 2013,” in “the sector of La Ciénaga, Santo Domingo, National District,” and the other was recorded “one day later,” on September 27, “in the city of Barahona, in the province of the same name.” According to the State, “these videos were recorded because the [alleged] identity theft of Wilnet Yan, or Willia[n] Medina Ferreras, as he called himself, had been discovered a few days before the hearing.” The State also affirmed that the videos were prepared for the proceedings before the Inter-American Court, “merely and exclusively as part of the oral arguments,” and that, “in principle, they d[id] not form part” of any domestic proceedings. Nevertheless, contrary to this, the State provided information on domestic proceedings dating from at least September 12, 2013, that included the interviews shown in the video (infra paras. 207 and 208), and indicated that “the investigation consisted in comparing the birth certificates of the real children of Abelardo Medina and Consuelo Ferreras with that of Mr. Willia[n] Medina Ferreras.” Lastly, it asked that the video “be […] incorporated into the body of evidence” of the case. 129. Both the representatives and the Commission objected to the presentation of the video. The former considered that it “was evidence that did not form part of the body of 88 Cf. Case of the Moiwaina Community v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 145, paras. 43 and 86.1 to 86.20, and Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile, paras. 35 and 55. 89 The Court notes that one of the photographs, corresponding to Abelardo Medina, appears in a document of June 28, 2006, entitled “Printout of the citizens’ data,” issued by the Central Electoral Board, based on its master list of those registered, and that this document was presented by the Commission as part of Annex 38 of the Merits report. However, this photograph is in a different format from the ones presented by the State during the hearing, because the one that appears in Annex 38 presented by the Commission is in a reduced format and incorporated into a page of a document that includes other information. This document does not include, in any format, the other photographs used by the Dominican Republic during the hearing. Therefore, the fact that the photograph of Abelardo Medina appears in the said document does not change the consideration that the photographs shown to Mr. Medina Ferreras during the public hearing were presented for the first time during that procedure. 38