observations, the State merely asked that they be accepted, because they constituted “supervening” evidence.” 54. The Court notes that the State had already presented annexes 1, 3 and 5 to this brief as annexes to its answering brief. However, the document forwarded as annex 5 will be examined infra because the content varies from the one that was offered in the Merits Report and in the State’s answering brief. Moreover, the State did not justify the time-barred presentation of the other documents based on any of the exceptions established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure for documents that do not refer to supervening facts. This is sufficient to find that the said documentation is inadmissible. In addition, regarding the other documents transmitted by the State, the Court finds it pertinent to observe the following: a) Regarding the text of bill 2012-2013; a note of the International Organization for Migrations (IOM) of April 11, 2013, on the presentation of a 1998 document and two reports on the police record of Juan Carlos Molina Remecín, the State failed to indicate why it had been unable to obtain or to forward those document previously, so that it is not appropriate to admit them as evidence. In addition, in these proceedings, the Court is not determining the guilt or innocence of State agents involved in the facts, but rather the international responsibility of the State under the American Convention. Regarding the bill, the Court takes note that it is being processed. b) Regarding a brief with observations and a “professional opinion” of a psychologist with regard to the psychiatric opinion provided by expert witness Mario Uribe Rivera in this case, the Court notes that this was issued at the State’s request, by a professional who was a member of the State’s delegation during the hearing held in this case, and that the said “opinion” was not offered at the appropriate opportunity by the State, and was not required by the Court at any procedural stage, so that it is not appropriate to admit it as evidence. v. Other documents 55. In its brief answering the submission of the case, the State objected to annexes 3,41 42 31 and 35 of the Inter-American Commission’s Report, and annexes G,43 P1,44 P4,45 P6 and D1 of the representatives’ brief. 56. Regarding the minutes of the meeting of the Bolivian National Refugee Commission (hereinafter “CONARE”) of February 21, 2001, the State objected to the document forwarded by the Commission, which the State itself had sent during the processing of the case before the Commission, because it alleged that the Commission had forwarded the document “in an incomplete form, in order not to make public the cases examined by that organ.” Accordingly, 41 The State referred to it as “Urgent action of the Committee of Peruvian Refugees in Chile, which refers to the existence of acts of repression by the Peruvian State,” and alleged that “this case relates to facts that arose in Bolivia, not in Peru.” 42 The State indicated: “Certifications issued by Garreon y Asociados, Lawyers, a UNHCR agency in Chile, both dated August 24, 1998; they indicate that Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco and Fredesvinda Tineo Godos, are recognized as refugees by the Government of the Republic of Bolivia, without taking into account that the said persons, by means of a sworn declaration, requested their voluntary repatriation to their country of origin on March 5, 1998, and by Decision No. 156/98, the Bolivian National Immigration Service concluded the temporary courtesy residence granted them.” 43 The State alleged that “they all refer to expenses of public defenders, representatives of the presumed victims; the State refers back to what it has already indicated […] about the supposed expenses of the public defenders.” 44 However, the State referred to this document as “Constitutional Judgment No. 004/2001, because, in this judgment, the Constitutional Court of Bolivia declared the unconstitutionality of articles 20(h), 46(b) and 48(j) of Supreme Decree No. 24423, articles and paragraphs that are directly related to this case.” 45 The State referred to this as “certifications issued by Garreon y Asociados, Lawyers, a UNHCR agency in Chile, both dated August 24, 1998.” 19