presentation of the said documents is time-barred and, consequently, the Court will not consider them in its decision. 42. In addition, the Court observes that, in December 2011, the representatives informed the Court of the discovery and identification in November that year of the mortal remains of Sergio Saúl Linares Morales an Amancio Samuel Villatoro, two victims in this case, and submitted certain documentation in this regard (supra para. 8). Also, on April 18, 2012, the representatives advised the Court that, in March 2012, the mortal remains had been found and identified of “three [persons] whose disappearance are described in the Diario Militar,” but they were not presumed victims in this case, even though their “discovery […] has important implications as to the nature and scope of the State responsibility” in this case. On that occasion, and together with their final written arguments, the representatives also presented copies of the death certificates of several family members of the disappeared victims, some of whom “had died in recent months,” and others “in previous years”; however, “ha[d] taken some time to obtain copies of all of the death certificates.” The State did not object to the admission of this information or of the corresponding evidence. In accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court considers appropriate to admit the information and documentation relating to the discovery and identification of the mortal remains of the two presumed victims in this case, and of the other three persons referred to in the Diario Militar, because the events occurred after the presentation of the brief with the motions and pleadings relevant for deciding this case. Furthermore, under Article 58(a) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court admits the copies of the death certificates presented by the representatives, to the extent that they are useful to determine and identify the victims in the case at hand. This information and documentation will be assessed in the context of the body of evidence and in accordance with the rules of sound judicial discretion. 43. In addition, the Court observes that, on various opportunities,39 the representatives asked the Court to require the State to present official documents of the Guatemalan Army “related to the victims of the Diario Militar in general, as background and not merely limited to the victims of the case sub judice and their next of kin,” as well as of the Historical Archive of the National Police. In this regard, the Court considers that it is not necessary to require Guatemala to present this documentation, 40 because it is not essential for deciding this case, owing to the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State, and taking into account that the available body of evidence provides sufficient probative elements to decide the merits of this case. 44. In their observations on the investigation report requested by the Court (supra para. 11), the representatives and the Commission indicated, inter alia, that the report submitted was “insufficient and inadequate” and that it “d[id]not comply with the criteria established by the Court” when requesting it (supra para. 11). The Court considers that the observations of the Commission and the representatives refer to aspects of the content of this report that do not contest its admissibility, but rather relate to its probative value. 41 Consequently, under Article 58(c) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court finds it appropriate to 39 The representatives made this request in their pleadings and motions brief, their brief with observations on the acknowledgment of responsibility, and their written final arguments. 40 The Court has ruled similarly in the following cases: Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 38, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 34. 41 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 43; and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 28. - 18 -