V EVIDENCE A. Admission of the documentary evidence 42. The Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Commission and the State attached to their principal briefs. As in other cases, the Court admits the probative value of those documents presented by the parties and the Commission opportunely (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure),47 the admissibility of which was not contested or challenged and whose authenticity was not questioned. 43. The State presented two types of documents with its final written arguments: (a) annexes 1, 2 and 3 related to the alleged victim’s health,48 and (b) annex 4 with minutes of a meeting of the Superior Council of the Judicature.49 The representatives indicated that the annexes were time-barred and irrelevant for deciding the case; therefore, they asked the Court to reject them. 44. The Court reiterates that evidence forwarded outside the appropriate procedural opportunities is inadmissible, unless the exceptions established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure apply, namely: force majeure, grave impediment or in the case of a fact that occurs after the said procedural moments. Given that annexes 1 and 2 refer to facts that occurred after the corresponding procedural stage and that they respond to questions raised during the public hearing, they are admitted pursuant to the exceptions established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. In the case of annex 3, which refers to facts or situations before the presentation of the answering brief and considering that the State did not allege any of the exceptions established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, those documents are not admitted because they are time-barred. Lastly, the Court admits annex 4 provided by the State, because it was forwarded in response to a request made by the President based on Article 58(a) of the Rules of Procedure, as he considered the information useful for deciding this case. B. Admission of the statement and the expert evidence 45. The Court deems it pertinent to admit the statement made by Scot Cochran by videoconference during the public hearing and the opinion provided by expert witness Sandra Babcock in an affidavit, insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them,50 and the purpose of this case. In general and pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, documentary evidence may be presented together with the briefs submitting the case or with pleadings and motions, or with the answering brief, as applicable. Evidence forwarded outside these procedural occasions is not admissible, subject to the exceptions established in the said Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (force majeure or grave impediment) or in the case of a supervening fact – that is, one that occurred after the said procedural moments. 47 48 Annex 1 contains a medical epicrisis dated October 26, 2022, describing Scot Cochran’s health; Annex 2 dated October 25, 2022, contains a description of the diet provided to Scot Cochran in the prison, and Annex 3 contains a forensic psychological report of October 26, 2016, with a statement by Scot Cochran. Annex 4 contains Minutes No. 019–2002 of the Superior Council of the Judicature of a meeting during which the Consular Convention between the United States of America and Costa Rica, and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations were analyzed. 49 50 Case of Scot Cochran v. Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 5, 2022. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/scot_cochran_05_10_22.pdf 13