that evidence related to supervening facts can be presented to the Court by the parties at any procedural stage, before the judgment. This does not mean that any situation or event constitutes a supervening fact for the purposes of the proceedings, since such facts must be directly related. 34 The Court considers that the evidence provided by the State refers to events that occurred after the presentation of the answer, which are related to the subject matter of the instant case, therefore, in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, it admits these documents. 62. On August 27, 2021, the representative of Mr. Díaz and Ms. Rodríguez and the representatives of Mr. Cuya, additionally presented other documents together with the additional evidence. 35 In this regard, the State, in its observations on the additional evidence presented by the aforementioned alleged victims, argued that certain documents were already in the file, 36 for which reason it requested their inadmissibility. This Court has verified that said documentation already appears in the body of evidence in this case, therefore it is dispensed with because it is already incorporated. 63. Furthermore, in the observations to the additional evidence, the State made several clarifications on the documentation presented 37 by the representatives of the three alleged named victims, which will be taken into account by the Court when analyzing information pertinent to the resolution of this case. The State also requested the inadmissibility of documentation and information 38 that was not requested nor was its presentation justified, as it considered it to be late, since it was not submitted at the appropriate time. In this regard, this Court notes that the representatives of Mr. Cuya and the representative of Mr. Díaz and Ms. Alvarado did present certain information and documentation that was not requested, which were presented together 34 Cf. Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2019. Series C No. 394, para. 45. 35 Namely: Regarding Mr. Díaz Alvarado: (a) Supreme Resolution No. 115-89-JUS of May 24, 1989; (b) Resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary No. 095-2001CNM of July 13, 2021; (c) Resolution No. 1 of December 12, 2006; (d) Hearing Resolution, issued by the Second Civil Chamber of the North Lima Court of Justice, on August 3, 2007, and (e) Resolution of the Constitutional Court on December 19, 2007. Regarding Ms. Rodríguez Ricse: (a) Resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary No. 095-2001CNM of July 13, 2001; (b) Resolution No. 128 of June 22, 2007 issued by the First Specialized Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Northern Lima; and c) Resolution of the Constitutional Court of December 20, 2007. Regarding Mr. Cuya: (a) Supreme Decree No. 058-2002-EF of April 5, 2002. Gratuity for education; (b) Supreme Decree No. 110-2002-EF of July 8, 2002. Gratuity for National Holidays, and (c) Emergency Decree No. 065-2002 of December 4, 2002. Christmas Gratuity. 36 Such as the document offered by the representative of Mr. Díaz and Ms. Rodríguez in point 4.3.2 regarding the resolution of the hearing, issued by the Second Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Northern Lima, on August 3, 2007, which is incomplete, as well as the one indicated in point 5.2.2, which is the CNM resolution No. 095-2001 CNM of June 13, 2001, which although it was not requested by the Court, the document provided does not coincide with the one provided that consists of Official Letter No. 565-SG-CNM-2001 of July 13, 2001. As well as the following documents presented by the representatives of Mr. Cuya on October 13, 2020 together with the brief of preliminary objections and the additional evidence: (a) Report No. 199-2012-JUS/PPES; (b) Report No. 174-2016-JUS/PPES; (c) Report No. 1062016-JUS/CDJE-PPES; (d) brief with observations on the Admissibility Report No. 19/15 of October 15, 2015, and (e) Emergency Decree No. 114-2001 of September 27, 2001. In addition it dispensed with, since they are already part of the file, documentation not requested as additional evidence and presented by the State regarding a newspaper publication of the call for ratification procedures for the year 2001, Phase Three, held on January 22, 2001, and the schedule of activities of the call for ratification procedures for the year 2001, Phase Three, dated May 22, 2001, which had already been submitted by the State with the response. Finally, the State also presented Legislative Decree No. 25 issued on January 30, 1981, which is also dispensed with as it was not requested. 37 The clarifications refer: regarding the representative of Mr. Díaz and Ms. Rodríguez, they are related to the position that each one held, the remuneration of each of the victims at the time of their non-ratification and their erroneous comparison since they received different remunerations, and that the use of the exchange rate is not objective or exact, the incorrect use of proof of income for the two victims, among others. In the case of Mr. Cuya, the clarifications are related to the payment slips provided. Furthermore, regarding the arguments presented by the State regarding the expert opinion of Mr. Leandro Despoy rendered in the case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, it is recalled that this question was already settled in the Resolution of the President of the Court of January 28, 2021, supra. 38 Regarding information from the representative of Mr. Díaz and Ms. Rodríguez on "the income of a Provisional Provincial Prosecutor at present, as well as the allegations about the exchange rate" and the additional documents that were presented and not requested, as well as the relation to the legal provisions applicable in general to the magistrates, presented by the representatives of Mr. Cuya. 18