142. The representatives argued that the Court, “when assessing the incorporation of the evidence into the proceedings, in addition to verifying strict compliance with its Rules of Procedure, […] should take into account whether the party presenting it was acting in good faith.” They added that the Court “should assess whether, owing to [its] actions, the State was really trying to clarify the facts based on the discovery of new facts, or whether, to the contrary, it was seeking to discredit the victims or their representatives or the Court itself.” The representatives presented several documents as annexes to their brief. 143. Meanwhile, in its observations the Commission considered that: The information provided by the State does not answer the specific questions raised by the Court and, to the contrary, many aspects of this information are inconsistent with and contradict other official documents and the numerous acknowledgements made by the State throughout the years that the case was being processed before the Commission […] in relation to the Dominican nationality of Mr. Medina Ferreras. 144. Regarding the State’s explanations concerning the Court’s request for helpful evidence, as well as the observations of the representatives and the Commission on the State’s brief, the Court admits them insofar as they are related to the request. The documentation presented by the State did not include any document relating to the “correction” made to the “certification” issued by the DGM, or a formal record or declaration that was valid and gave rise to legal effects of the alleged fraud committed when obtaining the identity card, or to the investigations conducted in 2000 or to a formal record or declaration of the supposed “identity theft”; although, as already mentioned, the State did indicate that the DGM had made a series of inquiries and that the documentation appeared in “annex 6 to the brief submitting the case.” Instead, the State forwarded several documents issued between October 2013 and February 2014, and a report on the current investigations 94 relating to Willian Medina Ferreras and his three children. In other words, the State did not present the documents requested, but forwarded other documents instead. Nevertheless, the Court notes that these documents refer to actions that occurred following the presentation of the answering brief (supra para. 9), so that, even though the State did not indicate expressly that the documents related to supervening events, they refer to supervening facts. Consequently, the documents presented by the State are admissible, pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. For their part, the representatives forwarded various documents, all of which were already included in the body of evidence, except for the documents contained in annexes 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15. 95 Having examined them, the Court considers that annexes 9 and 10 94 Namely: Communication No. RE/14, of February 13, 2014, issued by the National Directorate of the Electoral Roll of the Central Electoral Board; Communication No. RE/295, of December 27, 2013, issued by the National Directorate of the Electoral Roll of the Central Electoral Board; Minutes No. 23-2013, of October 18, 2013, issued by the Registrar’s Committee of the Central Electoral Board; Report on the investigation into the birth declaration in the name of Willian Medina Ferreras of October 10, 2013, issued by Inspectorate of the Central Electoral Board, together with the communication forwarding this to the president of the Central Electoral Board of October 15, 2013, with the document attached; Certification of February 19, 2014, issued by the Secretary General of the Central Electoral Board, certifying Minutes No. 23-2013, of October 18, 2013, issued by the Registrars’ Committee of the Central Electoral Board; Communication No. 482/2013, of November 21, 2013, concerning the instructions of the National Director of the Civil Registry relating to the decisions taken in the said Minutes No. 23-2013 by the full Central Electoral Board; Communication No. 058-2014, of February 11, 2014, concerning the instructions of the Legal Adviser with regard to the decisions taken in relation to the said Minutes No. 23-2013 of the full Central Electoral Board; Certified copies of the information of the Central Electoral Board, based on its master list of those registered, on the following individuals: (1) Willian Medina Ferreras; (2) Yaribe Medina Ramírez; (3) Luis Medina Ferreras; (4) Mario Medina Cuello; (5) Briseida Medina Ferreras, and (6) Argentina Medina Ferreras de Medina. According to the State “the latter document [was] forwarded so that the Court could verify that, contrary to the birth declaration of the said Willian Medina Ferreras, all the other birth declarations bear the signature of Abelardo Medina”. 95 Namely: Annex 9, Affidavit of Jorge Castillo Ferreras, prepared before the notary José Miguel Pérez Heredia in Pedernales on March 10, 2014; Annex 10, Affidavit of Alfredo Castillo Ferreras, prepared before the notary José Miguel Pérez Heredia in Pedernales on March 10, 2014; Annex 13, Diario 7días.com, “JCE Querella 43