13 some documents extemporaneously21 in accordance with Article 46(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. In this regard, the State did not allege the existence of any of the situations in that Article to justify its untimely submission of those documents. Finally, the State submitted a copy of the “Report on the mortal remains found in 1983 by the National Commission of Investigation of Forced Disappearances,” which was requested by the Court during the public hearing (supra para. 8) as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case. However, the Tribunal notes that the State submitted some documents as “annexes that accompany and support” the abovementioned report, which were not requested by the Court,22 and that, due to their dates, are extemporaneous. 46. The Court admits and shall assess those documents submitted by the State that had already been incorporated into the case file, as well as those documents submitted by the State and the representatives that relate to supervening events, in application of Article 46(3) of the Rules of Procedure. Additionally, because the Court finds them to be useful to adjudicate this case, the Tribunal admits and shall assess as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case, most of those documents submitted extemporaneously by the State and all of those documents submitted extemporaneously by the representatives, in accordance with Article 47(2) of the Rules of Procedure.23 All of these documents will be evaluated together with body of evidence and in accordance with the rules of sound judgment. 47. With respect to the testimonies and expert opinions, the Court considers that they are relevant inasmuch as they adhere to the purpose defined by the President in the Order requesting them (supra para. 6). These shall be assessed in the corresponding chapter together with the body of evidence, taking into account the observations made by the parties.24 According to the jurisprudence of this Tribunal, statements rendered by the alleged victims cannot be assessed separately, but rather, must be evaluated along with and nomination of the ‘Ibsen family’ roundabout; Municipal Order G-M-L-P- No. 085/2010, issued on April 8, 2010; and Modifications to the Criminal Regulations System Act, Act No. 007, May 18, 2010. 21 These documents are: the National Program on Action on Human Rights ”Bolivia para Vivir Bien 20092013 [Bolivia to live well 2009-2013];” “Exhibit 1” consisting on the certification of the Attorney General attached to the Economic-Financial Division of the Office of the Attorney General of La Paz, issued on April 9, 2010; in the order CITE: I.D.IF.-094/04 of the Director National of the Forensic Investigacions Institute of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, issued on February 7, 2004; and a letter of resignation from Mrs. Claribel Ramírez Hurtado and submitted before the Attorney General of the Republic, on October 22, 2004; “Exhibit 10”, regarding the “New Political Constitution of the State,” Offcial Version of October, 2008; and “Exhibit 11,” consisting on the Minimum Professional Fees Tariff of the “Ilustre Colegio de Abogados de La Paz” [Distinguished Bar Association of La Paz]. 22 Press release of the neswpaper Presencia, on February 19, 1983; “Information statement rendered by […] Luis Gómez Casaz [sic]” on February 22, 1983; “Police information statement redered by Mr. Lizandro Romero” on April 13, 1983; “Police information statement rendered by Mr. Bernardino Hernán Ibáñez Ríos” on April 13, 1983. 23 The Court shall not assess “Exhibit 1,” which consists of the certification of the Attorney General attached to the Economic and Financial Division of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of La Paz, dated April 9, 2020; the order CITE: I.D.IF.-094/04 of the National Director of the Institute of Forensic Investigation of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, dated February 7, 2002; and a letter of resignation subscribed by Mrs. Claribel Ramírez Hurtado and submitted to the Attorney General of the Republic, dated October 22, 2004. 24 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para 43; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 56, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 64.