of Admissibility Report No. 78/03 of October 22, 2003, the State did not submit any other brief. Thus, the State raised this objection for the first time in its answering brief before this Court, and therefore, it was not presented at the appropriate procedural opportunity. For this reason, the Court considers that the preliminary objection raised by the State is inadmissible. V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 27. The Court received various documents submitted as evidence by the Commission and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra, paras. 1 and 7). As in other cases, the Court admits those documents submitted in a timely manner (Article 57 of the Rules) 16 by the State and the Commission, whose admissibility was neither challenged nor disputed, and whose authenticity was not questioned. 28. The Court also received documents attached to the final arguments submitted by the State 17 and by the representative. 18 On August 13, 2021, the State submitted observations on the document presented by the representative, objecting to its inclusion as it considered it time-barred. Neither the Commission nor the representative presented observations on the documents submitted as annexes. 29. The Court finds that the documents attached to the final arguments of the representative were not submitted at the proper procedural opportunity, and that in this case, none of the exceptions defined in the rules for the extemporaneous admission of evidence are applicable. For that reason, the Court does not admit those documents. With respect to the documents presented by the State together with its final arguments, this Court finds that three of them 19 16 Documentary evidence may be presented, in general and in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, together with the briefs submitting the case, of pleadings and motions or answering briefs, as applicable. Evidence submitted outside these procedural opportunities is not admissible, except in the exceptions established in the said Article 57(2) of the Rules (namely, force majeure, serious impediment, or if it concerns a supervening fact, i.e. occurred after the aforementioned procedural moments. Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, paras. 17 and 18, and Case Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 6, 2021. Series C No. 440, footnote 21. 17 The State presented copies of the following documents: - Governmental Agreement 99-2020 of the President of the Republic of Guatemala, of July 30, 2020 (evidence file, folios 3783 to 3787). - Official letter No. 446-2021IIVMA of the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare, of July 12, 2021 (evidence file, folios 3789 and 3790) certifying that Guatemala has not ratified the ILO Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention (Convention No. 151 of 1978). - Official letter No. 2215-CRFR/Ibfg of the Personnel Department of the Judiciary of September 28, 1999 (evidence file, folios 3791 to 3799); - Official letter No. 532-JAAF/aamg of the Personnel Department of the Judiciary of April 28, 2000 (evidence file, folios 3801 to 3805); - Official letter No. 693-2021-MCDLT/bc of the Human Resources Management Unit of the Judiciary of July 7, 2021 (evidence file, folios 3807 to 3818) certifying the positions of the alleged victims Dora Carolina Portillo, Apolonio Salazar Carrillo, Abraham Teodoro Santizo Velásquez, José Francisco Pérez Sunay and Igmain Galicia Pimentel. - Official letter No. OC-438-2021/WGLS/ifgn of the Financial Management Unit of the Accounting Division of the Judiciary of July 19, 2021 (evidence file, folios 3819 to 3830) which establishes the payment of compensation to the alleged victims dismissed by decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of September 1, 1999. 18 The representative presented a report entitled “Peritaje de reparación digna y transformadora.” Case of the Former Employees of the Judiciary v. the State of Guatemala” (evidence file, folios 3753 to 3780). 19 These include the following documents: Official letter No. 446-2021IIVMA of the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare, of July 12, 2021; Official letter No. 693-2021-MCDLT/bc of the Human Resources Unit of the Judiciary of July 9