admissibility of allegations related to the factual framework, to ensure procedural equity for the parties. 23 36. The Court notes here that even though the Commission did not conclude in its Merits Report that there was a specific violation of the right to the truth, the representatives’ arguments concerning that violation are not based on new facts but rather on facts that are part of the factual framework established in that report. The Court therefore has the authority to analyze the alleged violation; for this reason, it rejects the State’s argument. VI EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 37. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives, and the State with their main briefs (supra paras. 3, 6, and 7). In this case, as in others, the Court admits documents presented by the parties and the Commission at the appropriate time (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure) 24 whose admissibility was not contested or opposed and whose authenticity was not in question. 25 38. The Court notes that the representatives included three annexes with their March 21, 2022, brief. 26 Neither the State nor the Commission challenged the presentation of those documents. Moreover, the Court notes that because those documents contain information related to facts subsequent to the presentation of the pleadings and motions brief, they are admissible in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court. 39. The Court also received documents attached to the final written arguments presented by the State 27 and the representatives. 28 In this regard, the Commission indicated that it had no comments on the documents presented as annexes to the final written arguments of the parties. Cf. Case of Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, para. 22, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 33. 23 Documentary evidence can be presented—in general and in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure— with the submission briefs for the case, with pleadings and motions briefs, or with answering briefs, as appropriate. Evidence submitted outside those appropriate procedural occasions is not admissible, except in the cases established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (force majeure or serious impediment), or if it concerns a supervening fact, i.e., one that took place after the referenced procedural occasions. Cf. Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 17 and 18, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru, supra, footnote 33. 24 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2022. Series C No. 449, para. 14. 25 26 Those documents are the following: "Front Line Defenders, Global Analysis 2021,” of February 23, 2022 (Annex 1); Reporters Without Borders. “At risk: How to overcome weaknesses in protection programs for Latin American journalists,” from February 2022 (Annex 2), by Justiça Global and Terra de Direitos. “Começo do fim? O pior momento do Programa de Proteção aos Defensores de Direitos Humanos, Comunicadores e Ambientalistas,” from December 2021 (Annex 3). 27 Those documents are the following: Decision of the First Division of the Superior Court of Justice in the “statement attachments” related to Special Remedy No. 1303755 (Annex 1); Procedural step of “Grievance” in Special Remedy No. 1303755 (Annex 2); Decree No. 10.815/2021 (Annex 3); Order No. 201 of November 4, 2019, of the National Council of the Public Prosecutor's Office (Annex 4); Law 12.403 of May 4, 2011 (Annex 5); Order No. 251/2018 of the National Council of Justice (Annex 6); and Order No. 417/2021 of the National Council of Justice (Annex 7). 28 Those documents are the following: Pastoral Land Commission. “Agrarian Reform in Brazil,” from 2022 (Annex 1); Pastoral Land Commission. “Rural Conflicts, Brazil 2021,” from April 2022 (Annex 2); Pastoral Land Commission. “Press release: Violence in 2021: 75% increase in murders, over 1,000% increase in conflict-related deaths, and two massacres,” from April 2022 (Annex 3); Superior Court of Justice. Rejection of AREsp remedy 1.303.755/PA, of August 17, 2021 (Annex 4); Certification of res judicata of action for damages for pain and suffering No. 0007348-91.2007.8.14.0028, of September 13, 2021 (Annex 5); expense receipts for the Pastoral Land Commission (Annex 6); and expense receipts for CEJIL (Annex 7). 11