16 3. Should any of the parties allege force majeure, serious impediment, or the emergence of supervening facts as grounds for producing an item of evidence, the Court may, in that particular instance, admit such evidence at a time other than those indicated above, provided that the opposing parties are guaranteed the right of defense. 38. On December 4, 2009, the representatives forwarded as evidence based on supervening facts “recent information on the criminal investigation underway into the facts of the case.” They indicated that on October 30, 2009, the Office of the Attorney General for Justice of the state de Guerrero (hereinafter also “Guerrero Attorney General’s Office) notified the representatives that it had waived jurisdiction in favor of the Office of the Attorney General for Military Justice (hereinafter also “Military Attorney General’s Office”), “because those allegedly responsible for the facts […] are members of the Mexican Army.”40 39. In its answer to the application, submitted on February 17, 2010, the State confirmed the rejection of jurisdiction in favor of the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office, outlined the normative (legislative) grounds for this action, and indicated that it was in keeping with the laws in force. Additionally, in its written brief of final arguments, it explained that “the military public prosecutor is, currently, the only competent authority under the Mexican legal system in force, and it will continue as such until there is a legislative reform in this regard.” 40. For its part, the Inter-American Commission referred back to its observations in its Report on Merits and in the application concerning the military criminal justice system and underscored that “the intervention of the military criminal justice system in the investigation of a complaint of rape [allegedly] perpetrated against a civilian” cannot be justified. 41. The Court considers that this fact forms part, effectively, of the purpose of this case and admits, pursuant to the terms of Article 46(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the copy of note No. 344/2009 of October 29, 2009, relating to Preliminary Investigation FEIDS VI/002/2009, provided by the representatives, and will consider the information contained therein, to the extent that is appropriate. 42. In addition, during the public hearing, Mexico submitted a copy of the tomes VIII, IX, and X of the case file of Preliminary Investigation No. SC/180/2009/II-E of the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office.41 Moreover, at the end of the hearing, Mexico submitted numerous documents relating to “public, institutional, and legislative policy measures” adopted by the State.42 43. The representatives observed, regarding the documents “described in numerals 2 to 30 of the “Act of Documents Received,’ as well as all the procedures carried out before the military jurisdiction prior to February 17, 2010,” should have been presented by Mexico along with its answer to the application. That said, they requested the Court to “reject [the aforementioned documents], given that none [of them] can be considered supervening evidence.” 44. Regarding the documents provided by Mexico during the public hearing that relate to different State actions and policies concerning violence against women, the Court notes that they were not submitted at the appropriate time; that is, in the answer to the application. Moreover, Mexico failed to justify the late presentation by alleging force majeure, serious impediment, or supervening events; in other words, any of the 40 Cf. Brief of December 4, 2009, and copy of the notification of Order No. 344/2009 of October 29, 2009, issued in Preliminary Investigation FEIDS VI/003/2009 (case file on the merits, tome I, folio 337 to 339). 41 Cf. Record of receipt of documents of May 27, 2010, (case file on the merits, tome VII, folios 1496 to 1498). 42 Cf. Record of receipt of documents, supra note 41.