22 as the case may be. Evidence submitted outside the proper procedural opportunities is not admissible, except in the circumstances set forth in Article 57(2) of the Rules, namely, force majeure, serious impediment or if it concerns a fact that occurred after the aforementioned procedural moments. 69. In this regard, the Court notes that the representatives provided individualized lists of alleged victims, as well as their birth, marriage and death certificates and those of their next of kin through briefs of June 25, 2015 and April 19, May 30 and June 2, 2016. The Court notes that these documents were forwarded in order to verify the identity of the persons named as alleged victims in the case. In Chapter VI of this judgment, the Court has already stated that it will consider as alleged victims those persons identified and individualized by the representatives, provided that the Court has the necessary evidence to verify the identity of each one. Therefore, in application of Article 58(a) of the Rules of Procedure, 45 the Court admits the aforementioned documents as useful and necessary for the identification of the alleged victims in this case. B.2. Admission of the testimonial and expert evidence 70. The Court deems it pertinent to admit the statements of the alleged victims and the expert opinions provided at the public hearing and by affidavit, insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order that required them and the purpose of this case. C. Assessment of the evidence 71. Under the provisions of Articles 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, and in accordance with its consistent case law regarding evidence and its assessment, the Court will examine and assess the documentary evidence submitted by the parties and the Commission, the statements, testimonies and expert opinions, as well as the helpful evidence requested by this Court to establish the facts and rule on the merits of this case. To this end, it will adhere to the principles of sound judgment, within the applicable legal framework, taking into account the body of evidence and the claims made. 46 Likewise, according to the case law of the Inter-American Court, the statement made by the alleged victim cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather within the body of evidence in the proceeding, inasmuch as it can provide further information on the alleged violations and their consequences. 72. That said, the State has objected to the use of the Report of the Historical Clarification Commission (CEH) as evidence in the proceedings, arguing that in the agreement on its establishment it was stipulated that “[t]he works, recommendations and reports of the Commission will not individualize responsibilities, nor will they have judicial purposes or effects.” It explained that throughout the negotiation process of the Esquipulas II Accord, signed in 1987 by the Central American Presidents, in the discussions with the insurgent groups, and with the support of friendly countries and the mediation of the United Nations, it was stipulated that the aforementioned document would not have such effects, and therefore the Court cannot annul said Agreement. 73. The Court recalls that in previous cases it has placed particular emphasis on the evidentiary value of the reports prepared by Truth or Historical Clarification Commissions as relevant evidence in the determination of the facts and the international responsibility of States. 47 In this 45 Where pertinent, Article 58(a) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that: “The Court may, at any stage of the proceedings: a. Obtain, on its own motion, any evidence it considers helpful and necessary […].” 46 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 69 to 76, and Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador, para. 52. 47 For example, the Court has referred to the following documents: Final Report of the Historical Clarification Commission of Guatemala; Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Peru; Report of the Truth Commission for El Salvador; Report of the National Commission for Truth and Reconciliation, Report on the Classification of Victims of Human Rights Violations and Political Violence of the National Corporation for Reparation and Reconciliation,