for, the interpretation or application by the Court of the relevant international corpus juris in this case. iii. Evidence related to communications with the Chilean Consulate presented after the final arguments 48. During the public hearing held in this case, the State provided a certification of the National Immigration Directorate, according to which, “after reviewing its files, it had not found any written record from the Chilean Consulate confirming or refuting the refugee status,” clarifying that this “was not a certification from the Chilean Consulate.” The State indicated that it had not received a reply from the Consulate and, “since this is evidence of a negative nature – in other words, that there was no reply – the State made a great effort to be able to present evidence to the Court […] verifying whether they were refugees in Chile, and did not obtain an answer to these inquiries.” 49. In communications received on May 14 and 16, 2013, Rumaldo Pacheco Osco and his representatives, respectively, presented certain documentation that he had obtained from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State of Chile, in response to his request of April 16, 2013, under a Chilean law on access to public information. The original documents that he received indicate that, on April 30, 2013, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile answered Mr. Pacheco and sent him certified copies of the originals of these documents. Mr. Pacheco forwarded them to the Court because he considered them relevant for “the Court to consider” and “because the State of Bolivia [had] not reported information that it must have in its files.” The representatives asked that this documentation be admitted under Article 57(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, arguing that it had only just been able to obtain it, or else (based on what they themselves had requested in their motions and arguments brief), that the Court request this same documentation from Chile. The procedure following in this regard has been described previously (supra para. 12). 50. Regarding the admissibility of this documentation, the State indicated the following: a. Neither the State agents nor the Attorney General were unaware of this documentation and, in this sense, it is also a supervening document for the State. It argued that it was not credible that the document had only been obtained recently, because the presumed victims knew about it and knew how to obtain it, but, “in bad faith and disregarding procedural loyalty,” they had kept back this documentation to present it “at the last moment and, with this attitude, try to surprise the Court and prejudice the State,” which was placed in a “situation of defenselessness,” and with a “limited opportunity to exercise the adversarial principle” and its “right to a broad defense and, consequently, to due process.” b. “If [it] had known of the existence of these documents, and that they had been addressed to the Bolivian authorities, it would have taken exhaustive measures to initiate internal investigations and, if necessary, examined the possibility of acquiescing to the legal consequences”; c. There is no record in the National Archive of the Bolivian General Immigration Directorate of documentation sent by the Chilean Consulate in Bolivia. In July 2012, Bolivia asked the Chilean Government, through the Chilean Consulate General in Bolivia, for information on this case, and on [May 24, 2013,] Chile had not responded to this request; d. It reiterated the good faith and procedural loyalty of the State during the processing of the case before the Commission and the Court and, in this regard, indicated that the authenticity of the document provided by the presumed victim should be verified, because the stamp indicating the date of reception was illegible; e. In the absence of force majeure or grave impediment to the documents presented extemporaneously by Mr. Pacheco being obtained previously, as established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the documentation was inadmissible; f. The documents are communications between Chilean authorities and the only one that was supposedly sent to the immigration authorities was Note 168/10 of February 23, 2001, and the date 17