17 reasons set out in the Rules of Procedure that, exceptionally, allow evidence to be submitted after the answer to the application. Despite this, since they are pertinent and necessary for determining the facts of this case and the possible consequences, in accordance with Article 47 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court decides to admit said documentation. In regard to the copies of Preliminary Investigation SC/180/2009/II-E of the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Court notes that the actions taken by the State prior to the date the answer to the application was forwarded to the Court had already been incorporated into the case file on said opportunity (supra para. 5). Regarding the actions related to the preliminary investigation subsequent to February 17, 2010, the Court notes that, in effect, they form part of the purpose of the present case and could not be provided prior. Based on the aforementioned, the Court admits said documents as supervening evidence because they are relevant, in the terms of Article 46(3) of the Rules of Procedure. 45. On the other hand, the State and the representatives provided documents that accompanied their final written arguments. Mexico provided, among other documents, up-to-date copies of the actions taken by the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office in the Preliminary Investigation SC/180/2009/II-E of the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office, and a copy of Mexican Official Norm NOM-046-SSA2-2005 “Domestic Violence, Sexual Violence, and Violence against Women. Criteria for Prevention and Attention.”43 On their behalf, the representatives submitted documents related to costs and expenses. 46. In relation to the documents presented by the State that refer to domestic norms, the representatives argued that the State “has [not] alleged a ‘force majeure’ or ‘serious impediment’ that exempted it from not introducing this documentation at the opportune procedural time,” to which they requested the Court not to admit it. Likewise, they affirmed that “[t]he referenced norms are general regulations regarding public policies related to equality and nondiscrimination, access to health care, rights of the child and of women,” which “were not applicable to the case [because] they are not pertinent to the examination of State conduct.” Regarding the Preliminary Investigation SC/180/2009/IIE of the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office, they affirmed that “the referenced documentation is evidence of the continuity of the violation of the fair trial [judicial guarantees] and judicial protection of [Mrs.] Rosendo Cantú, demonstrating not only that the military forum is not competent, but also that it is biased, inadequate, and ineffective.” As a consequence, they requested the Court to disregard the documentation presented by the State and that it be before the presentation of its brief in answer to the application, and that in relation to the documentation subsequent to said brief, the Court consider it “additional evidence” of the responsibility of the State in this case. 47. With regards to the Preliminary Investigation SC/180/2009/II-E of the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office, submitted by the State with its written brief of final arguments, the Court notes that they correspond to the actions carried out as of May 26, 2010, namely, subsequent to the date of the answer to the application, and for such reasons they were not able to be presented prior. For this reason, said documents will be considered evidence of supervening facts in the terms of Articles 46(3) of the Rules of Procedure and admitted where appropriate. On the other hand, in relation to Mexican Official Norm NOM-046-SSA2-2005, the Court reminds that said document was offered among the documents presented by the State during the hearing44 and whose admission has been ruled on by the Court (supra para. 44). In relation to the other documents provided by the State together with their final written arguments, given their relevance and utility in the clarification of the facts of the present case and in the eventual consequences, pursuant to Article 47 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court decides to admit them. The Court will take into consideration the observations of the parties with 43 Mexican Official Norm NOM-046-SSA2-2005 “Domestic Violence, Sexual Violence, and Violence against Women. Criteria for Prevention and Attention”; published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on April 16, 2009. Cf. Record of receipt of documents, supra note 41, numeral 31. 44 Record of receipt of documents, supra note 41, numeral 31.