29 71. The documents provided by the Commission during the public hearing were presented after the statutory time limit had elapsed. The Court has maintained that the exception established in Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure is applicable only in the case when the proponent alleges force majeure, grave impediment or supervening events12. However, although the Commission did not demonstrate such circumstances in this case, the Court admits them, in application of the provisions of Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure, as it considers that they are useful for the evaluation of the facts. 72. The 1993 Constitution of Peru, promulgated on December 29, 1993, Decreelaw 26.111 (Law on General Norms of Administrative Procedure), “Supreme Resolution” No. 254-2000-JUS of November 15, 2000 (Accepting the recommendations formulated in report 94/98 issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights), “Ministerial Resolution” No. 1432-2000-IN of November 7, 2000 (Annulling R.D. No. 117-97-IN-050100000000, which canceled the Peruvian nationality title), Legislative Resolution No. 27401 of January 18, 2001 (repealing Legislative Resolution No. 27152) (supra para. 61) and the evidence contributed by the Commission on expenses and costs are considered useful in order to decide on the instant case and, therefore, are added to the pool of evidence, in accordance with the provisions of Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure (supra para. 60). 73. Regarding the documentary evidence contributed by the Commission, the Court accords probative value to the documents submitted in the application and at the public hearing that were not contested or challenged, or their authenticity doubted. 74. With regard to the testimonies given in this case, the Court admits them only to the extent that they agree with the purpose of the interrogation proposed by the Commission, and it admits Samuel Abad Yupanqui’s expert report, with regard to his knowledge of constitutional issues relating to nationality and due legal process. 75. As for Mr. Ivcher Bronstein’s declaration, since he is the alleged victim and has a direct interest in this case, the Court believes that his statements cannot be evaluated on their own, but rather in the context of all the evidence in the proceeding. However, Mr. Ivcher’s declarations should be considered to have a special value, to the extent that they may provide greater information on certain facts and alleged violations committed against him 13. Therefore, the statement referred to is incorporated into the pool of evidence with the above-mentioned considerations. VIII PROVEN FACTS 12 Cf. Cesti Hurtado case. Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 56, para. 47. 13 Cf. Cantoral Benavides case. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 59.