11 40. On the other hand, regarding the supervening evidence provided by the State on January 28, 2019 (supra para. 10), the State indicated that “the reason for the extemporaneous presentation was that the administrative file was received on January 25, 2019” and for this reason “could not have been offered previously because its content was unknown”. This Court recalls that evidence submitted outside of the due procedural moments is not admissible, save for the the exceptions established in the Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, namely, force majeure, serious impediment or if it were an event that occurred after the cited procedural moments.24 The Court does not consider that the justification provided by the State falls within these situations, nor was such evidence expressly requested by the Court. For these reasons, the evidence is time-barred under the terms of Article 57(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and therefore it is inadmissible. 41. Regarding the evidence presented by the State and the representatives together with their final written arguments, in addition to that requested by the judges during the public hearing (supra para. 13),25 the Court notes that the representatives have not justified the reasons why, under the terms of Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, they presented attachments 8,26 23,27 25,28 and 2729 with the final written arguments, being that the appropriate procedural moment would have been with their brief of pleadings and motions. Consequently, said evidence is time-barred and in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, it cannot be admitted to the body of evidence in this case. On the other hand, attachment 5130 refers to supervening facts, for which reason it can be accepted by this Court. Regarding the other attachments provided by the representatives, the Court notes that they were already part of evidentiary file of the case, hence it does not deem it necessary to issue a separate ruling on their admissibility. 42. Lastly, on March 15 and 16, 2019, the representatives informed the Court on certain supervening facts, related to the alleged victims’s refugee status in Brazil, and attached pages from the book by Juan Arrom “Callejones del terror”, several journalistic articles and a video of statements made to a media outlet by María Edith Bordón de Debernardi on March 11, 2019 as evidence.31 The State argued that these journalistic articles are not related to the case. The Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, paras. 17 and 18, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 38. 24 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 Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 53. 25 The four annexes presented by the State and annexes 10, 13, 14, 17, 20, 22, and 33 presented by the representatives are considered related to the questions asked by the judges. 26 Corresponds to the note from the Diario Noticias, entitled “According to Nogués, tyranny continues”, of February 3, 2002 (evidence file, f. 13456). 27 Corresponds to the note of the ABC color digital newspaper, entitled "They ask that the refuge of Arrom and Martí be revoked", of July 8, 2005 (evidence file, f. 13500). 28 Regarding the new information, it corresponds to the resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia in process No. 29,877 of May 18, 2011 (evidence file, fs. 13506 to 13532). 29 Annex 27 to the final written arguments of the representatives corresponds, as regards the new information, to Decision No. 236 of December 20, 2001 (evidence file, fs. 13586-13590). 30 Annex 51 to the final written arguments of the representatives corresponds to the notes of the Última Hora digital newspaper entitled “Arrom and Martí Case: Codehupy sustains that the State intends to lower the protection in Human Rights”, of January 15, 2019 (evidence file, fs. 13940 to 13942); “Attacking the Inter-American Court is to ignore all the progress made in terms of human rights,” of January 21, 2019 (evidence file, fs. 13943 to 13946), and "To ignore the role of the Inter-American Court would be to follow the path of Venezuela,” of January 22, 2019 (evidence file, fs. 13947 to 13948). 31 Specifically, the notes presented by the representatives as evidence of the supervening facts are: (i) Note from the newspaper La Nación, titled “Await reciprocity from Brazil in handing over fugitive criminals,” dated March 15, 2019; (ii) Note from the ABC Color newspaper, titled “Bolsonaro would withdraw the refuge from Arrom and Martí” of March 13, 2019; (iii) Note from the newspaper La Nación, entitled “Bolsonaro insinuates that Arrom and Martí will