compatibility with the American Convention.10 To this extent, it is essential to analyze the decisions issued by the different jurisdictional authorities, in order to determine their accordance with the international obligations of the State. Based on the above, the opposing preliminary objection is dismissed. V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of documentary evidence 20. The Court received numerous documents presented as evidence by the Commission and the parties together with their main briefs (supra para. 4, 7, and 8). As in other cases, the Court admits those documents that were presented at the appropriate procedural moment (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure),11 by the parties and the Commission, which is clear and requires no interpretation, and that to accept such a request would involve an amendment to that judgment.12 21. On the other hand, the State and the representative submitted, together with their corresponding final written arguments, a set of documents in response to the requests made by the Presidency, based on Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure (supra para. 11), which are admitted.13 In addition, in the briefs of June 29, and July 20, 2022, the representatives sent documents in response to the request of June 10, 2022, which is also admissible.14 22. However, both the State and the representatives sent, along with their final written arguments, other documents that did not meet the requirements made by the Presidency. Thus, the Court finds it appropriate to recall that Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, which regulates the admission of evidence, establishes: Exceptionally, and having heard the opinion of all those participating in the proceedings, the Court may admit evidence if the party that has offered it adequately explains that the evidence was not presented or offered at the procedural moments established in Articles 35(1), 36(1), 40(2) and 41(1) of these Rules of Procedure due to force majeure or serious impediment. Additionally, the Court may admit 10 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 222, and Case of Digna Ochoa et al. v. Mexico, supra,para. 38. 11 In accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, documentary evidence may generally be presented together with the briefs, requests, and arguments or answers to the case, as appropriate. Evidence submitted outside of these procedural opportunities is not admissible, except in the exceptions set out in said Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (namely, force majeure, serious impediment) or in the case of a supervening event, meaning one that occurred after the aforementioned procedural moments. 12 Cf. Case Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile. merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2019. Series C No. 449, para. 14. 13 The following documents are involved: (a) submitted by the State: (i) Law on National Police Personnel, published in Official Register Supplement 378 of August 7, 1998, repealed on June 21, 2017; (ii) Disciplinary Regulations of the National Police, published in Official Gazette Supplement No. 378 of September 28, 1998, repealed on June 21, 2017, and (iii) Organic Code of Citizen Security and Public Order Entities, published in Official Gazette Supplement No. 19 of June 21, 2017, and (b) referred by the representative: (i) Disciplinary Regulations of the National Police, effective since August 7, 1998; (ii) the National Police Personnel Act, published in Official Register Supplement No. 378 of August 7, 1998; and, iii) Organic Code of Citizen Security and Public Order entities, published in the Official Gazette Supplement No. 19 of June 21, 2017. 14 The following documents are required: (a) record No. PN-DNTH-ARCH-2022-571-O dated June 21, 2022, signed by the Head of the Central Archive Section of the National Directorate of Human Talent of the National Police of Ecuador, and (b) Resolution No. 154-III-99-Constitutional Court Chamber, Third Chamber, issued on October 28, 1999, case No. 352-99-AA. Regarding the following document, it should be noted that it was properly included as evidence in the process. On August 5, 1998, the Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court issued its Decision in case No. 31-98-RA.