13 47. Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure establishes that [i]tems of evidence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if previous notification thereof is contained in the application and in the reply thereto and, where appropriate, in the communication setting out the preliminary objections and in the answer thereto. Should any of the parties allege force majeure, serious impediment or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for producing an item of evidence, the Court may, in that particular instance, admit such evidence at a time other than those indicated above, provided that the opposing party is guaranteed the right of defense. This provision confers an exceptional character on the possibility of admitting items of evidence at times other than those indicated. This exception would be applicable only should the applicant allege force majeure, serious impediment or supervening events. 48. During the public hearing on preliminary objections, the State declared that it would submit to the Court copies of “repeated jurisprudence” on the subject matter of the instant case. However, neither on that occasion, nor in its presentation brief of November 27, 1998 (supra 46), did the State make any statement on the reasons for the extemporaneous presentation of these items of evidence. Therefore, the Court will consider whether the circumstances that determined the late presentation can be considered exceptional in order to justify their admission and whether the evidence offered is related to the subject matter of the application in this case, based on the available elements. 49. The Court examined the 29 documents presented by the State. Of these, 28 correspond to judicial decisions, while the twenty-ninth is a copy of the Peruvian Code of Military Justice. 50. With regard to the judicial decisions, the Court has verified that, without exception, they were issued before the date on which Peru presented its reply to the application. Furthermore, of these documents, the only ones that are relevant to the subject matter of this case are the first and the fourth22. However, the Court has verified that the Commission had added copies of these documents to the file as annexes to its application (supra 42 and 25), and they have already been added to the pool of evidence in the case; consequently, it is unnecessary to incorporate them for a second time. 1997; copy of the decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of October 14, 1997; copy of Decree-Law No. 23,214, Code of Military Justice; Articles 328 to 366; copy of the decision of Criminal Chamber “B” of May 26, 1998; copy of opinion No. 071-98-MP-FN-4a FSP, issued by the Provisional Supreme Prosecutor Specialized in the Crime of Terrorism, of April 30, 1998; copy of opinion No. 4329-97-MP-FN-2a FSP, issued by the Supreme Prosecutor of the Office of the Second Supreme Criminal Prosecutor on November 28, 1997; copy of the decision of Criminal Chamber “C” of the Supreme Court of Justice of April 28, 1998; copy of report No. 4010-97-I-FSP-MP, issued by the Supreme Criminal Prosecutor of the Office of the First Supreme Criminal Prosecutor of November 11, 1997; copy of the decision of Criminal Chamber “C” of the Supreme Court of Justice of April 20, 1998; copy of the decision of the First Transitory Criminal Chamber of March 5, 1998; copy of opinion No. 3471-97-MP-FN-2a FSP, issued by the Supreme Prosecutor of the Office of the Second Supreme Criminal Prosecutor on September 10, 1997; copy of the decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of December 9, 1997. 22. Cfr. copy of the decision of the Public Law Chamber of February 12, 1997 in proceeding 335-97; and copy of the decision of the Public Law Chamber of Lima of December 13, 1996.