its acknowledgment of international responsibility and the subject has been extensively developed in the Inter-American Court’s case law. V EVIDENCE A. Admission of the documentary evidence 24. The Court received a variety of documents presented as evidence by the Commission and by the representative, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 5 and 6). As in other cases, this Court admits those documents presented at the proper procedural moment (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure)12 by the parties and the Commission, whose admissibility was neither contested nor opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned.13 B. Admission of expert testimony and evidence 25. This Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements provided by expert witness Silvia Judith Quan Chang via video and by José Guevara Díaz via public hearing, as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them and the purpose of this case.14 VI FACTS 26. In view of the scope of the state’s acknowledgment of responsibility, the Court will review the facts of the case in the following order: (a) Luis Fernando Guevara Díaz and the competitive hiring process for selecting a "Miscellaneous Worker 1”; (b) the appeal for reversal; (c) the amparo proceeding; and (d) the proceeding before the National Office of the Labor Ombudsperson. A. Luis Fernando Guevara Díaz and the competitive hiring process for selecting a "Miscellaneous Worker 1” 27. Luis Fernando Guevara Díaz is a person with an intellectual disability.15 Documentary evidence can generally be submitted, according to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, with the briefs submitting the case, with pleadings and motions, or answering the submission of the case, as applicable. Evidence forwarded outside the appropriate procedural moments is not admissible, except in the cases established in the above-mentioned Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (force majeure or serious impediment) or if it relates to a supervening fact—that is, a fact that took place after the these procedural moments. 12 Cf. Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure; also Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 2, 2021. Series C No. 441, para. 31. 13 The subjects of these statements are set forth in the Order of the President of the Court of February 17, 2022. The representative dropped his efforts to put forward the statements of Roxana Rodríguez Barquero and Dionisia Vega Fernández. 14 Cf. Medical certification of May 9, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1044). According to the diagnosis of the National Children's Hospital, Mr. Guevara's disability takes the form of, inter alia, “learning problems,” “emotional blockage,” and “behavior disorders.” 15 8