Rules of Procedure)18 by the parties and the Commission, whose admissibility was not contested or challenged, and the authenticity of which was not questioned.19 18. In addition, together with their final written arguments, the representatives presented various newspaper articles which they indicated were related to the facts of the case. The State, when presenting its observations, argued that the said “newspaper articles” were “irrelevant” and that they had been “added extemporaneously”; it therefore asked the Court not to admit them. The Commission indicated that it had no comments to make in this regard. The Court reiterates that evidence forwarded outside the appropriate procedural moments is not admissible, save in the case of the exceptions established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, namely: force majeure, grave impediment, or if it relates to a fact that occurred following the said procedural moments.20 Consequently, those newspaper articles forwarded with the final written arguments that were published prior to the presentation of the pleadings and motions brief are inadmissible because they are time-barred. 19. Lastly, it should be noted that the newspaper articles provided opportunely by the Commission and the parties21 and also the audiovisual material provided by the representatives22 are admitted and will be assessed, pursuant to the Court’s case law, when they relate to well-known public facts or statements by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case, provided that it is possible to verify their source and date of publication.23 Therefore, the Court decides to admit the documents that are complete or that, at least, allow their source and date of publication to be verified, and will assess them taking into account the whole body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion.24 B. Admissibility of the testimonial and expert evidence 20. The Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements made by affidavit25 and during the In general, according to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, documentary evidence may be presented together with the briefs submitting the case and with pleadings and arguments, or with the answering brief, as applicable, and evidence forwarded outside of these occasions is not admissible, subject to the exceptions established in the said Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (namely, force majeure, grave impediment, or if it relates to a supervening fact; in other words, one that occurred following the said procedural moments). 19 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 426, para. 39. 20 Cf. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 17, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador, supra, para. 40. 21 Cf. Annex 3 to the Merits Report (evidence file, volume I, folios 6 and 7); annexes III.A, III.B, III.C, III.D, III.E, III.G, V.C, V.D, V.F, VI.C, VI.D, VIII.A, X.A, XIII and XXI to the pleadings and motions brief (evidence file, volume IV, folios 6314 to 6378, 6380 to 6397, 6399 to 6414, 6416 to 6443, 6445 to 6453, 6457 to 6468, 6493 to 6495, 6499 to 6500, 6504 to 6512, 6867 to 6870, 6872 to 6873, 8321 to 8441, 8461 to 8512, 8715 to 8745 and 9202 to 9290), and annexes 2.1 to 2.5 to the answering brief (evidence file, volume V, folios 9465, 9467, 9469, 9471 and 9473). 22 Cf. Annex XVI to the pleadings and motions brief (evidence file, volume IV). 23 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 146; Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 360, para. 144, and Case of Roche Azaña et al. v. Nicaragua. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 3, 2020. Series C No. 403, para. 13. 24 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37 para. 76, and Case of Roche Azaña et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 13. 25 The Court received affidavits from: Alexei Porres Piovet, Hilario Benjamín Fernández Bogado, Carmelo Juan Gregorio Benítez Cantero, Felipe Santiago Paredes, Luis Alberto Zarate Chávez, Hugo Ruiz Díaz Balbuena, Luis Adolfo Ramón Lezcano Claude, María Concepción Villalba viuda de Fernández, Myrian Concepción Areco Amaral, Bader Rachid Lichi, Amelio Ramón Calonga Arce, Arnaldo Martínez Prieto, Oscar Buenaventura Llanes Torres, Sindulfo Blanco, Juan Francisco Recalde Burgos (evidence file, volume VIII, affidavits, folios 13427 to 13605), Carlos Sebastián Acha Mendoza and Juan Carlos Ramírez Montalbetti (evidence file, volume IX, affidavits, folios 13607 to 13618). It also 18 8