V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the evidence A.1. Admissibility of documentary evidence 31. The Court received several documents submitted as evidence by the Commission, the representative and the State along with their main briefs. In this case, as in others,21 the Court admits the evidentiary value of those documents filed by the parties and the Commission at the correct procedural time, which were not disputed or objected, and whose authenticity was not questioned. In addition, the Court admits the documents provided by the State and by the representative, which were requested as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, in conformity with that set forth in Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (supra para. 10). 32. On September 13, 2018, the representative submitted, along with the brief on observations to the preliminary objections filed by the State, several annexes corresponding to briefs of the proceedings before the Commission, as well as information requests to the State regarding the operation plan “Limpieza 94” (Cleaning '94). The State claimed that such evidence is time-barred and thus inadmissible. The Court observes that the documentation presented by the representative was already in the file and was admitted in the previous paragraph. 33. Subsequently, the representative submitted a brief on October 18, 2018, as “justification for the presentation of annexes on September 13, 2018” and submitted additional annexes. In conformity with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the procedural time for the presentation of documentary evidence is, in general, along with the brief of submission of the case, the brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence, or the answering brief, as applicable. Since the annexes submitted along with the brief of October 18, 2019, are time-barred and were not justified by any of the exceptions contemplated in the Rules of Procedure, it was not expressly requested by the Court as evidence to facilitate adjudication and it is not supervening evidence, such annexes will not be admitted or considered by the Court.22 34. Moreover, the Court notes that the representative objected to some of the documents submitted by the State in the brief of February 13, 2019. 23 Firstly, regarding the Regulations of Investigative Councils, the representative claimed that it did not have knowledge of that document prior to 2009, and that “the Supreme Decrees that support such Regulations were never published in the ‘El Peruano’ Official Newspaper.” Regarding the copy of the publication of Supreme Decrees 09 and 049 in the “El Peruano” Official Newspaper, the representative argued that “these [were] never published,” and submitted two documents in which the “documentation center” of “El Peruano” Official Newspaper indicates that Supreme Decrees “No. 009-85-GU, of October 22, 1985” and “No. 049-91-DE/EP, of September 26, 1991” have not been published in the “in the separate section of legal regulations of ‘El Peruano’ Official Newspaper.” Similarly, the representative submitted a series of documents to demonstrate that the “court-appointed legal counsel […] Fernando Morales Cabala […] was not present at any of the hearings [… and] that the Minutes and Certifications submitted by the State of Peru have fake signatures of the courtCf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 19, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 10, 2019. Series C No. 376, para. 20. 22 This evidence consisted of: (i) a request made by Jorge Rosadio Villavicencio to the General Commander of the Army of Peru, for an “authenticated copy of Decree N° 25635, Law of the National Intelligence System […] and Decree N° 065-DE-SG from July 1992, Regulations on the Organization and Functions of SINA”; (ii) a request made by Jorge Rosadio Villavicencio to the General Commander of the Army of Peru, for the “Administrative Disciplinary File, related to the investigation opened and performed by the Inspectorate of the Leoncio Prado Detachment which concluded with INF INV N° 044 DLP/K-1/20.04.a dated September 23, 1994,” and (iii) a request made by Jorge Rosadio Villavicencio to the General Commander of the Army of Peru, to receive “certified copies” of different “documents that are instruments for [his] means of defense.” 23 By means of the Secretariat’s note of February 15, 2019, the Court informed that it will not take into account the arguments regarding the merits expressed by the representative in the aforementioned brief dated February 13, 2019. 21 10