by the representatives based on those facts and, therefore, the supposed violations of Articles 1(1), 5(1), 5(2), 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4) and 7(5) that the representatives indicated in this regard. VI EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 28. The Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives and the State, as well as those requested by the Court or its President as helpful evidence and, as in other cases, it admits them in the understanding that they were presented at the appropriate procedural moment (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure)21 and that their admissibility was neither contested nor challenged. 29. On February 27, 2019, following the submission of their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives forwarded as supervening evidence, probative material on alleged facts that occurred after their pleadings and motions brief had been submitted. The said documents were not contested by the State. The Court notes that they refer to supervening facts and therefore accepts them pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 30. In addition, the representatives forwarded additional documentation together with their final written arguments.22 The Court notes that the representatives failed to justify, pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, why they presented annex 5 together with their final written arguments because the appropriate procedural moment to present this was with their pleadings and motions brief. Regarding the other annexes provided by the representatives, the Court notes that they refer to supervening facts and, therefore, admits them pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 31. For its part, the State provided the report entitled “Orden de servicio tipo misión No. 116-2005, ‘Operación Gavilán’” together with its final arguments. The Court notes that this document was already included in the case file;23 consequently, it does not find it necessary to make a separate ruling on its admissibility. 32. The Court notes, however, that the State failed to present specific helpful evidence that it had requested during the public hearing. In a communication of May 3, 2019, the Court asked the State to present “documents relating to the arrest warrant [for the victim] and all the measures that support it.” The Court notes that the State failed to present any document in response to this request. 21 In general and pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the documentary evidence may be presented together with the brief submitting the case, the pleadings and motions brief, or the answering brief, as applicable, and evidence forwarded outside these procedural opportunities is not admissible, subject to the exceptions established in the said Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (namely, force majeure or grave impediment) or if it relates to a supervening fact; that is, one that occurred after the said procedural moments. Cf. Case of 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. 22 Namely: (i) Indictment of March 6, 2019, of the Public Prosecution Service for the crime of extrajudicial execution under case file MP:M3542-2005-4338; (ii) Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Guatemala by the Committee against Torture, CAT/C/GTM/CO/7, of November 23, 2018; (iii) “Informe Anual circunstanciado de actividades y de la situación de los Derechos Humanos de 2018” [Detailed annual report on the situation of human rights, 2018], prepared by the Guatemalan Ombudsman; (iv) documents supporting expenses and costs incurred by CEJIL, and (v) birth certificates of Herbert Ruiz Marroquín, Jenyfer Ruiz Marroquín and Hugo Ruiz Marroquín. 23 Cf. Annex No. 18 to the Merits Report of the Commission (evidence file, folios 225 to 230). 9