to this Court power of attorney letters granted by the Maya Mam indigenous people of Cajolá on the grounds that they have not been able to establish contact with that community, mainly due to the situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The lack of power of attorney mentioned refers to the legal representation of an indigenous community identified by the Commission in its Merits Report, so that it is not an issue related to the very nature of the indigenous people as alleged victims. 19 Furthermore, there was clearly continuity in the representatives’ actions since the processing of the case before the Commission, given that most of the representatives have acted as petitioners before the Commission, and there is no record that, in all the years that the process lasted, the Mam community of Cajolá has expressed any disagreement with such actions. 20 Accordingly, and without prejudice to the fundamental importance of the duty of prior consultation with indigenous peoples on any matter that may affect them, the Court considers that the Maya Mam indigenous community of Cajolá is one of the alleged victims in this case. 26. Consequently, the Court will consider as alleged victims in the case under analysis only those indigenous communities identified by the Inter-American Commission in the Merits Report, namely: Maya Kaqchikel of Sumpango; Maya Achí of San Miguel Chicaj; Maya Mam of Cajolá, and Maya Mam of Todos Santos Cuchumatán. V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 27. The Court received various documents submitted as evidence by the Commission, the representatives and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 3, 6 and 7). As in other cases, the Court admits those documents submitted in a timely manner (Article 57 of the Rules) 21 by the parties and the Commission, whose admissibility was not disputed or challenged, and whose authenticity was not questioned. 22 Cf. Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, para. 88. 20 Cf. Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 88. 21 In general, and in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules, documentary evidence may be presented together with the briefs submitting the case, of pleadings and motions or answering briefs, as appropriate. Evidence submitted outside of those procedural opportunities is not admissible, except in the exceptions established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (force majeure or serious impediment) or if it concerns a supervening fact, that is, one that occurred after the aforementioned procedural opportunities. 22 Cf. Article 57 of the Rules; see also Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2021. Series C No. 434, para. 33. 19 -9-