evidence requested in accordance with Article 58(b) of its Rules that were not objected to by the parties. 138. With respect to the procedural opportunity for the submission of documentary evidence, according to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, such evidence must be presented, in general, together with the briefs submitting the case, of pleadings and motions or answering briefs, as the case may be. The Court recalls that evidence submitted outside of the proper procedural opportunities is not admissible, except in the exceptions established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, namely, force majeure, serious impediment or if it concerns a fact that occurred after the aforementioned procedural moments. 181 139. In this regard, attached to their brief of April 8, 2016, containing observations on the preliminary objections, the Inter-American Defenders submitted as evidence the Final Report with Recommendations of the Ombudsman’s Office, dated February 22, 2011. The Court admits said document pursuant to Article 58(a) of the Rules, considering it useful for the study of the arguments of the parties regarding the alleged violation of the right to personal integrity of the alleged victims. 140. Also, in a brief dated April 12, 2016, the common interveners SIPDH submitted, together with their brief of observations on the preliminary objections: i) the death certificate of Mr. Manfred Amrhein, and ii) the cassation judgment in a civil suit for damages related to the criminal proceeding of the petitioners of Group 1 (Manfred Amrhein et al.). Said documents pertain to Group 1, on which the Court will not rule in this judgment. Therefore, these documents will not be taken into account. 141. In addition, together with its final written arguments, the State submitted the “Study on Appeals Regimes in Adversarial Criminal Procedure Systems in the Americas: Central Aspects,” prepared by the Justice Studies Center of the Americas at the request of the InterAmerican Commission. In this regard, the Court observes that this report is dated August 31, 2009, and therefore it is not supervening evidence and the exceptions provided for in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure do not apply. Consequently, the Court will not admit said document. 142. As for the annexes submitted by the State together with its final written arguments, corresponding to the briefs submitted by Costa Rica after the adoption of the Merits Report in the proceedings before the Commission, the Court admits them, since it considers that they were already part of the file before the Commission. 143. With regard to the documents on costs and expenses submitted by Factum Consorcio with its final written arguments, the State objected to these documents, arguing that in its answer it had requested that all claims for reparations be dismissed. However, the Court considers that the State’s objection is an argument on the merits of the case that does not preclude the admissibility of the documents. In this regard, the Court will only consider those documents that refer to costs and expenses incurred after the submission of the pleadings and motions brief, pursuant to Article 40(2)(d) of the Rules of Procedure. 144. In addition, together with its brief of December 19, 2017, containing observations on the annexes forwarded by the State on September 25 and November 28, 2017, SIPDH forwarded transcribed documentation related to “motions for review decided by the Third 181 Cf. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 22, and Case of Vásquez Durand et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 15, 2017. Series C No. 332, supra, para. 52. 49