15 with the Mental Health Team, and is written on letterhead paper of the “Fundación de Ayuda Social de Fieles de las Iglesias Cristianas.” 59. The Court notes that while the report submitted does concern matters bearing upon the victim’s physical and psychiatric condition, the necessary formalities were not followed to prepare it. Those formalities require the appointment of experts by the Court (Articles 43 et seq of the Rules of Procedure). Therefore, for reasons other than those alleged by the State, the Court cannot regard this document as expert evidence and, hence, it will be admitted as documentary evidence in the instant Case. 60. Inasmuch as the other documents presented by the victim were neither objected to nor challenged, the proper procedure is to add them to the body of evidence in the instant Case. * * * 61. On June 11, 1998, after the normal deadline for introducing evidence had passed, the victim sent eight documents concerning medical expenses and references, citing the provisions of Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure (cf. medical references extended by "Centros Integrales de Salud," April 29, 1998; estimate for dental work, issued by the "Santiago Lion’s Club," May 18, 1998; receipt No. 14570 for laboratory tests issued by "Ginelab Limited," June 1, 1998; diagnosis of breast examination issued by "Ginelab," June 1, 1998; medical reference issued by "Ginelab," June 1, 1998; ultrasound report issued by "Ginelab," June 1, 1998; and receipt No. 14580 for laboratory tests, issued by "Ginelab Limited," June 3, 1998). 62. On July 14, 1998, the State objected to the documents in question, noting that in the Court’s Judgment, the only expenses for which reimbursement had been ordered were those incurred in representations before the Peruvian authorities. The State argued that the documents submitted did not fall within the scope of that Judgment and were also filed extemporaneously. 63. The rule contained in Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure (supra 37) makes provision for the Court to admit evidence after the deadline in exceptional cases. The exception applies only when the party alleges force majeure, serious impediment or the emergence of supervening events. In the case of the documents submitted by the victim on June 11, 1998, the Court has established that they were all issued subsequent to the deadline for presentation of evidence and that the facts that they corroborate cannot be regarded as supervening events. Hence, their inclusion in the body of evidence must be denied. * * * 64. As evidence to help the Court arrive at a more informed judgment, on July 29, 1998, the President requested information from the State concerning the official exchange rate between the local currency of Peru and the United States dollar for the period from 1993 to 1998. It also asked the State to furnish Peru’s legislation on salaries and work bonuses. 65. On September 11, 29 and 30, 1998, the State submitted eight legal texts, one report and exchange rate quotations for Peru’s local currency