10 defendants in the proceedings for the kidnapping of María Edith Bordón de Debernardi and that “[a]ny allegation of irregularities in these proceedings must be submitted to the consideration of the Court of Judgments designated for the public and oral trial [of that] case.”21 Subsequently, on November 7, 2011, the State indicated that the process for the kidnapping of María Edith Bordón de Debernardi “must necessarily be separated from the facts of the alleged deprivation of liberty and torture committed against Mr. Arrom and Mr. Martí, and in that sense, any argument or irregularity must be put to the consideration of each body that intervenes in said processes separately.”22 36. In the Report on the Merits, the Commission notes that: The petitioners stated that the State violated their rights in the judicial process regarding the kidnapping of Mrs. María Edith Bordón. The State maintained that the possible irregularities in said process must be discussed in the national courts and that the Commission is not competent to rule on the matter. The Commission considers that the matter on which it will rule is mainly the alleged disappearance and torture of Juan Arrom and Anuncio Martí; however, it notes that the facts of the case are intertwined with the process for the kidnapping of Mrs. Bordón. Therefore, it will address this last process whenever it is related to the possible violations raised by the alleged victims. 37. The Court notes that the publication entitled “Enemies of the Paraguayan People WANTED” happened eight years after the investigation into the alleged forced disappearance of Messrs. Arrom Suhurt and Martí Méndez was carried out and that they occurred within the framework of a different judicial proceeding. Therefore, regardless of the conclusions reached by the Commission in the Report on the Merits, this Court does not consider that these are supervening facts within the petition initially submitted for consideration of the Commission, nor are they related to the alleged violations of judicial guarantees and effective judicial remedy in the framework of the investigation for the alleged forced disappearance. Thus, it has no relation to the factual framework of this case. 38. Consequently, the inclusion in the Report on the Merits of the publication entitled “Enemies of the Paraguayan People” is not related to the object of the litigation. Therefore, it cannot be considered part of the factual framework of the case. Additionally, it is necessary to highlight that the Commission did not examine the admissibility of these facts. Thus, the Court will not take into account the publication entitled “Enemies of the Paraguayan People WANTED” nor will it examine the violations alleged in its regard. V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of documentary evidence 39. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives and the State, as well as those requested by the Court or its Presidency as evidence to facilitate adjudication, which, as in other cases, it admits with the understanding that they were presented at the appropriate procedural moment (article 57 of the Rules of Procedure)23 and their admissibility was not disputed or challenged. Cf. Brief of the State of February 28, 2011 before the Commission (evidence file, f. 1541). Cf. Brief of the State of November 7, 2011 before the Commission (evidence file, f. 2419). 23 Documentary evidence may be submitted, in general and in accordance with Article 57.2 of the Rules of Procedure, together with the submission brief, the brief of pleadings, motions and evidence, or the answering brief, respectively. Evidence submitted outside of these procedural opportunities is not admissible, other than in the exceptions established in article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (namely, force majeure or serious impediment) or unless it was a supervening event, that is, it occurred after the aforementioned procedural moments. cf. Case of the 21 22