VI EVIDENCE A) Documentary evidence 55. The Court received various documents submitted as evidence by the Commission, the representatives, and the State, which, as in other cases, are admitted as long as they are submitted at the appropriate procedural moment (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure).35 Moreover, as stated in the Resolution of December 8, 2021 (supra para. 9), expert statements from other proceedings were incorporated into the case file as documentary evidence.36 On February 13, 2022, the Court also received documentation from the representatives concerning the criminal investigation in Colombia, related to matters that occurred after the pleadings and motions brief had been submitted. Since it refers to evidence of supervening facts, the documentation was accepted, pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 37 56. The Court also received two documents attached to the State’s final written arguments. On March 29, 2022, the representatives submitted comments on the documents, stating that they should be incorporated. The Court admitted one of the documents, because it provides complementary information about the expert opinion of Mr. Yepes Palacio, but saw no need to determine the admissibility of the other, since it already forms part of the body of evidence. 38 Pursuant to Article 58(a) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court incorporated the document Hasta encontrarlos. El drama de la desaparición en Colombia,” published in 2016 by the National Center for Historical Memory, which is a national public entity in Colombia. 57. In operative paragraph 16 of the Resolution of December 8, 2021 (supra para. 9), the Court asked the State to provide a number of documents. On February 9, 2022, the State rejected the Court’s request to furnish the documentation, citing domestic reasons. Specifically, the Ministry of National Defense had stated that it could not agree to the request, because the documentation contained information on military operations that were a question of national defense and security. The State also pointed out that one of the documents mentioned in the Resolution “does not exist” and that others had been revoked, two of them since May 1993, namely: the “Manual de Inteligencia de Combate (MIC), EJC 2-3 de 1978” and the “Reglamento de Combate de Contraguerrilla, EJC-3-10, del Comando General de las Fuerzas Militares de 1987 – Disposición 036 del 12 de noviembre de 1987.” The Court takes note of the State’s comments; nonetheless, its refusal to provide documentation requested by the Court has consequences in relation to the proof of the facts. The State’s failure to furnish evidence that it has in its possession for the proceedings cannot prevent the Court from making determinations in this regard and reach conclusions based on the evidence actually provided. Documentary evidence may be presented, in general and pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules, together with the case referral, pleadings and motions, or answering briefs, but evidence submitted outside of these procedural moments is not admissible, apart from the exceptions established in Article 57(2) of the Rule of Procedure (namely, force majeure or serious impediment), or in the case of an event that occurred after the established procedural moments. Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, paras. 17 and 18; Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru, supra, para. 35 and footnote 33, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2022. Series C No. 449, para. 14. 36 These are the expert statements presented in the Case of Isaza Uribe v. Colombia by Messrs. Michael Reed Hurtado, Jorge Mauricio Cardona Angarita, and Carlos Enrique Arévalo Narváez. 37 The two documents forwarded by the representatives are: a) Brief of May 17, 2021, presented by General (Ret.) Fredy Padilla de León, expanding on the statement of April 21 and May 10, 2021; and b) Report No. 0-458141 and 9458143 of August 18, 2021, prepared by the Judicial Police’s Support Group for the Investigation and Analysis of Organized Crime. 38 The documents forwarded by the State are as follows: a) a decision of the Council of State of May 15, 2018, and b) a decision of the Council of State of February 5, 2009. The latter had already been presented as evidence by the representatives, as Annex 3 to the pleadings and motions brief. 35 16