28. In addition, the Court received documents attached to the final written arguments submitted by the State 23 and the representatives 24 (supra para. 11). On July 26 and August 6, 2021, the representatives and the State, as well as the Commission, respectively, submitted observations to these documents. In this regard, the Commission only referred to the content of the State’s annexes and indicated that it had no observations to make regarding the annexes to the arguments of the representatives. 29. For their part, the representatives pointed out that six pages of Annex “AE-03”, attached to the State’s final arguments, appears to be identical to a part of Annex “AE-09” of the State’s answering brief, but that another six pages of Annex “AE-03” had not been previously submitted to the Court, despite the fact that they came from the same criminal case file to which Annex “AE-03”refers. The Court recalls that evidence submitted outside the proper procedural opportunities is not admissible, except in the exceptions established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, namely, force majeure, serious impediment, or if it refers to an event that occurred after the aforementioned procedural moments. 25 In this regard, the Court notes that Annex “AE-03” to the State’s final arguments refers to the criminal file related to the accusation against Anselmo Xunic, which was already at the disposal of the State at the time it submitted its answer. Consequently, and since none of the exceptions specified in the Rules for the admission of evidence presented out of time are present, the annex in question will not be admitted. 30. The State, in turn, argued that Annex 1 to the representatives’ final written arguments should not be admitted, since it concerns a request for precautionary measures filed by the representatives before the Commission and concluded in May 2019. It also pointed out that some of the receipts submitted by the representatives as “Annex 2” refer to expenses incurred prior to the submission of the pleadings and motions brief, and therefore its submission at this point would be time-barred. The Court finds that Annex 1 and pages 1 to 4 and 9 to 11 of Annex 2 to the final written arguments of the representatives were not offered at the proper procedural opportunity, and that none of the exceptions provided in the Rules of Procedure for the untimely admission of evidence are present. For this reason, they will not be admitted. 31. The Court admits the other documents attached to the final arguments of the parties, insofar as they refer to aspects discussed at the public hearing in the case, to questions asked by the judges during that hearing or to proof of expenses incurred by the representatives in the litigation of this case. 23 The State of Guatemala attached 12 annexes to its final written arguments: (i) AE-01 – Decision SIT-2962004 of the Superintendency of Telecommunications, of August 2, 2004; (ii) AE-02 – Conviction No. 14003-201400280/UA/AM. Trial court for drug trafficking and environmental crimes of the department of Quiché, Santa Cruz del Quiché, September 1, 2016; (iii) AE-03 - Documents from File 653-2006. Trial court for criminal matters, drugtrafficking and environmental crimes of the department of Sacatepéquez, La Antigua Guatemala; (iv) AE-04 – Decision on files 1446-2015 and 1449-2015. Constitutional Court, of July 8, 2015; (v) AE-04A - Official letter 601-2021AAP/DDHH/GM/AH. Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance. Dated June 21, 2021; (vi) AE-05 - Official letter DL-MAAA-pv-839-2021 of the Congress of the Republic, of June 4, 2021; (vii) AE-06 - Initiative No. 4087, approval of the Community Media Law; (viii) AE-07 - Initiative No. 4479, proposed reforms to the Criminal Code, Decree No. 1773 of the Congress of the Republic; (ix) AE-08 - Initiative No. 3142, proposed reforms to the General Telecommunications Law, Decree 94-96 of the Congress of the Republic; (x) AE-09 - Initiative No. 3151, proposed reforms to the General Telecommunications Law, Decree 94-96 of the Congress of the Republic; (xi) AE-10 - Initiative Reg. No. 2621, approval of the law on community broadcasters, and (xii) AE-11 – Framework Law of the Peace Accords, Decree No. 52-2005 of the Congress of the Republic. 24 The representatives of the alleged victims attached two documents to their final written arguments: (i) an email and documents sent by the representatives to the Commission on November 30, 2015; (ii) receipts and invoices from January 2018 to July 2021. 25 Cf. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 22, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, footnote 16. -10-