14 51. The other documents presented by the State do not refer to facts that will be examined by the Court in the Cesti Hurtado case, according to the text of the corresponding application. Indeed, although the State declared that they are “photocopies of contradictory decisions of the Public Law Chamber, signed by the same judges [who declared the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Gustavo Cesti Hurtado with merit]”, the Court has verified that, with the exception of the first and fourth document that have already been mentioned, twelve of the documents are not judicial decisions. The remaining fourteen documents are copies of judicial decisions, none of which were issued by the Public Law Chamber. 52. In this respect, the exceptional circumstances that would justify the late presentation of this documentation have not been demonstrated, so that it would be inappropriate to admit it. 53. The remaining document, a copy of the Peruvian Code of Military Justice23 is considered useful to decide the instant case; therefore, it is added to the pool of evidence, pursuant to the provisions of Article 44.1 of the Rules of Procedure. * * * 54. On November 24, 1998, after the public hearing on preliminary objections, the Inter-American Commission presented copies of seven documents24. 55. The Commission presented the first six documents because they had been offered to the Court by the expert, Samuel Abad Yupanqui, when he gave his expert report (infra 62). The Court has verified that these six cases are volumes or articles published subsequent to the application, which are of interest for examining the declarations of the expert. Accordingly, it is pertinent to add them to the pool of evidence in the case. 56. The seventh document mentioned is simply a copy of a judgment. The Court subsequently requested the State to present an authenticated copy of the same document (supra 23), and Peru complied with this request (infra 57). It is therefore unnecessary to add the copy presented by the Commission to the pool of evidence. * * * 57. On January 11, 1999, at the request of the Court, the State presented an authenticated copy of the judgment pronounced by the Constitutional Court, on June 23. Cfr. copy of Decree-Law No. 23,214, Code of Military Justice (Articles 328 to 366). 24. Cfr. copy of the volume entitled “Defensoría del Pueblo: Serie Informes Defensoriales - Informe No. 6: “Lineamientos para la reforma de la justicia militar en el Perú”, Lima, 1998; copy of the volume entitled “Defensoría del Pueblo - Primer informe del Defensor del Pueblo al Congreso de la República 1996 - 1998 Perú - Al servicio de la ciudadanía”, 1998; copy of the volume entitled “Revista de la Defensoría del Pueblo - Debate Defensorial” No. 1, September 1998; copy of the volume entitled “Defensoría del Pueblo Incumplimiento de Sentencias por parte de la administración estatal”, Lima, October 1998; copy of the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of July 2, 1998, published in El Peruano on September 29, 1998; copy of a newspaper cutting from El Comercio of October 7, 1998, entitled “Justicia Militar y hábeas corpus”, by Samuel B. Abad Yupanqui; and copy of the judgment of June 19, 1998, published in El Peruano on September 30, 1998.