22 48. Regarding the objection by the State to Annex 1 of the application, the InterAmerican Commission argued that, pursuant to the principle of estoppel of the stages of the proceeding, these take place successively by definitively closing each one of them; in other words, it is not possible to go back to previous stages. In this regard, Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure provides that there are specific moments for submission of evidence. Pursuant to this provision, according to the Commission, the State had the opportunity to defend itself, when it answered the application, from the arguments made by the Commission in its application and to submit its considerations regarding the evidence offered by the Commission; therefore, that was the appropriate procedural time to challenge any evidence the Commission had submitted in its application. 49. The representatives of the alleged victim also reiterated the arguments of the Commission, stating that the public hearing was not the pertinent procedural time for the State to object to evidence submitted by the Commission at the time of the application, for which reason the objection by the State should be rejected because it is time-barred. Additionally, the representatives argued that in cases before the Inter-American Court, as it has stated in its own case law, and especially in cases of forced disappearance or extra-legal executions, a flexible criterion must prevail for assessment of the evidence. They added that the report under discussion “contains substantive items that would help the [...] Court to reach a well-founded conclusion regarding the facts” and that it fulfills the requirements that it has not been proven that it is not authentic, that it is legible and clear in its content, and that it clearly states its source and addressee. In light of the above, the representatives asked the Court to find the “secret report” submitted as Annex 1 of the application filed by the Inter-American Commission to be valid as documentary evidence. 50. This Court notes that it does not have sufficient elements to verify whether Annex 1 of the application is or is not authentic, for which reason it will not consider it in the body of evidence in this case. 51. On March 4, 2003, in the framework of the public hearing on the case at the seat of the Inter-American Court, the representatives of the alleged victim submitted a study certificate for Ángel Belisario Hernández González at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras, issued on February 8, 2003. The State objected to this document, as “submitting said document at the last minute is contrary to the rules of procedural good faith,” since it should have been submitted at the start of the public hearing. 52. As this Court has repeatedly pointed out, admission of evidence in the international human rights ambit involves a certain degree of flexibility, and specifically this Court deems that the document supplied fulfills the requirement of being supervening evidence, as it was issued on February 8, 2003, that is, on a date subsequent to submission of the brief of requests, pleadings and evidence filed by the representatives, for which reason it admits this document and adds it to the body of evidence. 53. The report by the National Human Rights Commissioner, entitled “Los hechos hablan por sí mismos. Informe Preliminar sobre los desaparecidos en Honduras 1980-1993,” offered by one of the expert witnesses during the public hearing and not challenged by the State, for which reason the Court includes it in the body of evidence as documentary evidence.