The exception to this principle are facts that are classified as supervening, provided that they are related to the facts of the proceedings. 23 The Court notes that the facts referred to by the representatives do not explain, clarify or reject those included in the Merits Report relating to the death of Assistant Commissioner Jorge Omar Gutiérrez and the acts and omissions by State agents in the investigations opened into this event. Consequently, the Court will not take them into account in its decision in this case. B. Regarding the alleged structural deficiencies 30. In its answering brief, the State “reject[ed] those passages of the representatives’ brief that allegedly attempted to assimilate the facts of the case to situations of a systematic or general nature.” Meanwhile, the representatives explained that their pleadings and motions brief did not include arguments that tried to assimilate the facts of the case to situations of a systematic nature; rather, they had indicated “institutional structural deficiencies (of the provincial system of justice and of the functioning of the police involved) that facilitated the irregularities and intrigues that permitted, established and perpetuated up until today, the corporate concealment and the impunity of the murder committed by State agents involved in a criminal network.” On this point, they argued that what “the State presumably sought to ignore was precisely this dimension of the case, directly related to the alleged violations and the measures of non-repetition requested.” 31. The Court notes that, in their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives included assertions relating to supposed structural deficiencies in the police and judicial systems responsible for investigating the death of Assistant Commissioner Gutiérrez. However, these assertions bear no relationship to the dispute before the Commission and do not refer to specific facts that explain, clarify or reject those contained in the Merits Report (supra para. 2). Therefore, the Court will not rule in this regard. VI EVIDENCE 32. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 50, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law concerning evidence and its assessment, 24 the Court will examine and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded by the parties on different procedural occasions, the testimony provided by affidavit and during the public hearing, and also the helpful evidence requested by the Court. To this end, it will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding normative framework. 25 A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 33. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Commission and by the representatives attached to their principal briefs, as well as helpful evidence requested by the Court (supra paras. 11 and 13). In addition, it received the affidavits 23 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 57, and Case of the Kichwa indigenous People of Sarayaku, supra, para. 27. 24 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 al 76, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 30. 25 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Merits, supra, para. 76, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244, para. 13. 14