11 classified as supervening, which may be forwarded to the Court at any stage of the proceedings prior to the delivery of judgment, provided they relate to the facts of the case. 25. In the instant case, the Court notes that, in the Merits Report, the Commission included various remedies filed by Mr. Lagos del Campo, among which are those of March 30, April 28 and May 4, 1993, as well as those filed in 1996 and subsequently. The Commission also referred in the Merits Report to facts related to the self-coup of April 5, 1992, and the dissolving of the Court of Constitutional Guarantees. Therefore, since the Commission has submitted these facts to the jurisdiction of the Court, they may be taken into account when examining the merits of the case. Similarly, the facts narrated by the representatives in the brief with motions, pleadings and evidence will be taken into consideration, insofar as they do not constitute new facts. Consequently, the Court finds the State’s request in this regard inadmissible. V EVIDENCE A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 26. The Court has received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 6 and 7). In addition, the Court has received the affidavits prepared by Carlos Alberto Jibaja Zárate and Omar Sar Suárez, proposed by the representatives and the State, respectively. Regarding the evidence provided during public hearing, the Court received the statements of the presumed victim, Mr. Lagos del Campo, and the expert opinions of Damián Loreti and César Gonzáles Hunt, proposed by the Commission and the State, respectively.22 B. Admission of the evidence 1. Admission of the documentary evidence 27. In this case, as in others, the Court admits those documents presented by the parties and the Commission at the proper procedural opportunity or requested as helpful evidence that were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not questioned.23 The documents requested by the Court that were provided by the parties following the public hearing are incorporated into the body of evidence in application of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure (supra para. 10). 28. On March 20, 2017, the representatives presented observations on the annexes forwarded by the State with its final written arguments. In the case of documents that were incomplete or illegible, the Court considers that this does not affect their admissibility, although it may affect their probative weight. However, the Court considers that the said annexes respond to helpful evidence requested during the public hearing; they are therefore admitted under Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure. 2. Admission of the testimonial and expert evidence 29. The Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements made during the public hearing and by affidavit, insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them and the purpose of this case (supra para. 10). 22 Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Call to a hearing, supra, para. 9. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series 04, para. 140; Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 36, and Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru, supra, para. 58. 23