documents. 59. Regarding the procedural occasion for the presentation of documentary evidence, under Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, generally it must be presented with the briefs submitting the case, with motions and arguments, or answering the submission of the case, as applicable. Evidence provided outside the appropriate procedural opportunities is not admissible, save under the exceptions established in the said Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure; namely, force majeure, grave impediment, or if it relates to an event that occurred after the above-mentioned procedural opportunities. 60. During the public hearing on the merits (supra para. 11), the deponents Carlos Bacigalupo, Máximo Duque Piedrahíta, Federico Andreu Guzmán 66 and Ana María Bidegain presented documents, reports or written summaries of their statements, 67 copy of which was forwarded to the parties and to the Commission and they were able to present their observations. The admissibility of these documents was not opposed, and their authenticity and veracity was not challenged. The observations of the parties referred to the probative assessment and scope that should be accorded to these documents, which does not affect their admissibility as evidence. Considering them useful for deciding this case, the Court admits as evidence the documents provided by the said deponents insofar as they refer to the purpose of the said statements duly defined by the President (supra para. 11), in accordance with Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. 61. The State also presented certain documents with its final written arguments. 68 Then, on June 6, 24, 25 and 26, 2014, it submitted documentation in answer to a request for information by the acting President of the Court (supra para. 16). The representatives and the Commission were able to present their observations on this information and documentation and its admissibility was not opposed, and its authenticity and veracity was not challenged. In accordance with Article 58(a) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court finds it in order to admit the documents provided by the State with its final written arguments and on the said subsequent dates, insofar as they may be useful to decide this case, contribute to contextualize other evidence provided to the case file, and explain some arguments of the parties. 62. In addition, with their final written arguments, the representatives forwarded vouchers for expenses incurred following the presentation of the motions and arguments brief. The State was able to make observations on this documentation; consequently, the Court admits this documentation and incorporates it into the body of evidence. 66 Expert witness Andreu Guzmán presented a “written summary” of his opinion at the end of the public hearing on the merits. Subsequently, on November 15 and 27, 2013, he forwarded the Court a version of this “written summary” with some modifications in relation to the version handed over during the forty-ninth special session of the Court held in Brazil. In response to a request of the President of the Court, the expert witness confirmed that the last version forwarded should be considered the final version. 67 Cf. Record of delivery of documents. Public hearing of November 12 and 13, 2013 (merits file, folio 3575). 68 The State presented the following information: (1) Judgment of the Second Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit of April 2, 2013; (2) Report on the status of the proceedings instituted for the events relating to the taking of the Palace of Justice on November 6 and 7, 1985. Proceedings instituted by the Fourth Prosecutor delegated to the Supreme Court of Justice; (3) Communication of December 9, 2013, sent by the Director for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia to the Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo, advising it of the procedure for reparation to victims in the Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia; (4) Resolution No. 9122 of July 2, 1996, in which the Ministry of Defense established the payment of the reparations ordered by the Administrative Court of Cundinamarca in favor of Carlos Horacio Urán; (5) Resolution No. 04922 of April 21, 1986, recognizing the post mortem retirement pension and social benefits resulting from the death of Carlos Horacio Urán, under article 8 of Law 126 of December 27, 1985; (6) Resolution No. 06399 of May 27, 1986, recognizing the request to recalculate Carlos Horacio Urán’s pension; (7) Action for direct reparation filed by Gloria Ruth Oviedo and others before the Administrative Court of Cundinamarca, Third Section, Subsection “A”, of March 29, 2012. 26