because both the Court and other parties can find it immediately.61 In this case, neither the other parties nor the Commission contested or made observations on the content and authenticity of such documents. 64. Regarding the videos and recordings presented by the Commission and by expert witness Tulande that have not been contested and the authenticity of which has not been challenged, the Court will assess their content within the context of the body of evidence, applying the rules of sound judicial discretion. 62 65. The Court also observes that, in a note of its Secretariat of October 7, 2011,63 a response was provided to an allegation of the State in its answering brief that “most of the annexes presented by the […] Commission in relation to the case file being processed before it were unorganized, repeated or illegible, and did not comply with Article 35(d) of the […] Court’s Rules of Procedure.” 66. In addition, the Court recalls the provisions of Article 57 of its Rules of Procedure, according to which “[i]tems of evidence tendered before the Commission will be incorporated into the case file as long as they have been received in adversarial proceedings, unless the Court considers it essential to repeat them.” In this case, the evidence in the case file of the proceedings before the Commission presented with the brief submitting the case had been received previously in adversarial proceedings before the Commission to which the State was a party. Nevertheless, the Court takes note of the State's observations, and will assess the said evidence applying the rules of sound judicial discretion. 67. In its final written arguments, Colombia asked the Court “not [to take] into account the amicus curiae sent by the organization ‘Article 19’ […] because it had been submitted outside the time frame established in the Court’s Rules of Procedure,” since the brief was received in the Spanish language 20 days after the public hearing 68. Under Article 44 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the said amicus curiae brief should have been presented in the language of the case, which is Spanish, “at any time during contentious proceedings for up to 15 days following the public hearing.” The Court considers that, since the organization Article 19 submitted the brief, in Spanish, four days after this time frame had expired, the brief is not admissible because it is time-barred. 69. The State submitted certain documentation together with its final written arguments and in communications of July 18 and 27, and August 1 and 13, 2012 (supra para. 12), in response to requests for useful information and evidence made by the Court during the public hearing, and subsequently by the President (supra paras. 1 and 12). The Court 61 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 26, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations, para. 37. 62 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 93, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 107. 63 On the instructions of the President of the Court, the State was reminded that, in a note of the Secretariat of March 28, 2011, the Commission had been informed that, following a preliminary review, it was found that some documents were incomplete or illegible in the appendix and attachments to Merits Report 136/10 in this case. When the case was notified to the State, it was advised that, in a communication of April 4, 2011, the InterAmerican Commission had confirmed the observations made by the Secretariat following the respective analysis of the annexes, and had indicated that the folios identified as illegible were “the best [copies] it had.” The President of the Court also informed the State that the Court would assess those documents at the appropriate procedural opportunity. 23