24 only in the hands of the State, it corresponds to the latter to invalidate the veracity of the information included in the list in question. 80. According to the aforementioned, and to fact that the mentioned list of possible responsible parties is made up, among others, by names of different agents belonging to the State’s security forces, the Court decides to grant evidentiary value to that document only in what it relates to the alleged international responsibility of the State in the present case, and it will consider it jointly with the rest of the body of evidence. 81. With regard to the alleged criminal accusation of June 15, 1976 forwarded by the representatives on June 22, 2009, they requested their admission as “supervening evidence” given that “the National Human Rights Commission […] [had] just provided Mrs. Tita Radilla” with a copy of the same. Additionally, the State mentioned that the representatives “incur[red] in a non-compliance of the basic procedural rules [Articles 37 and 46 of the Rules of Procedure] regarding the presentation of their evidence and [that], failing to tell the truth, [… they made] reference to a document that was never filed by the next of kin of Rosendo Radilla.” Additionally, the State pointed out that the representatives did not justify why they were not aware of that document and the silence of Mrs. Tita Radilla in this regard. 82. The Court warns that, through the filing of this “supervening” document, the representatives wish to prove the existence of an alleged criminal accusation filed on June 15, 1976 with regard to the alleged forced disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco. On this subject, the Tribunal observes that Article 46(3) of the Rules of Procedure invoked by the representatives upon forwarding the mentioned document contemplates the Court’s possibility to admit evidence regarding “supervening facts” at procedural moments different to those stated in said provision. The fact referred to by the representatives occurred approximately 32 years before the filing of their brief of pleadings and motions. In that sense, it cannot be considered supervening and, therefore, the Tribunal does not admit as evidence the copy of the alleged accusation forwarded by the representatives. 83. In relation to the Evaluation Report on the Follow-Up of Recommendation 26/2001 of the National Human Rights Commission of August 25, 2009, forwarded by the representatives on September 30, 2009 as “new documentary evidence”, the State requested the Tribunal that it be assessed “according to the rules of competent analysis and only in what refers to the disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco.” 84. In this sense, in application of Article 46(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal admits as evidence the report presented by the representatives, which refers to the followup of Recommendation 26/2001 of the National Human Rights Commission, presented in a timely manner in the instant case and whose evidentiary value has already been determined (supra para. 71). Likewise, the Court points out that said document is related to the factual grounds of the present case and, in that sense, will be assessed in those parts relevant for this judgment in what they adjust to its object taking into account that stated in Chapter VIII (infra. paras. 116 and 117). 85. Regarding the decision of the Federal Institute of Access to Public Information of May 29, 2009, forwarded by the representatives on June 23, 2009, in reference to the Tribunal’s request that the State forward a copy of Preliminary Inquiry SIEDF/CGI/454/07 (supra para. 10); and the decision of the First Collegiate Court in Criminal and Administrative Matters of the Twenty-First Circuit of November 24, 2005, requested by this Tribunal as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, forwarded by the State on November 2, 2009 (supra para. 12), the Court includes them in the body of evidence in the terms of Article 47(1) of