the Court should not take them into account either when deliberating.”50 The State added that if the Court admitted this, “it would result in a violation of due process by preventing the State from being able to contest the evidence.” Regarding the document, “Census of the Río Sucio inhabitants,” the State noted that “it is not signed by the author or the spokesperson,” that “the document is a series of lists with significant errors,” and that “the lists, evidently prepared by third parties, in many cases do not bear the signature of those who appear on the list, or the fingerprint in the case of those who are unable to sign their names, and identity documents are missing.” In addition, the State observed that several of these documents seek “to change the universe of presumed victims in the case.” With regard to the document “Certificate of persons deceased,” the State underscored that Alirio Mosquera Palacio is not authorized to certify the death of anyone and that this “authority is exclusive to the National Civil Registry, based on a death certificate issued by a registered doctor, or the Institute of Forensic Medicine.” The State indicated that it had no observations to make on the other documents. 55. For its part, the Commission stated that, regarding the annexes to the final written arguments of the representatives, “the documents provided by the representatives constitute important probative elements to dissipate any possible doubts that the Inter-American Court might have had on the identification of victims in complex cases such as this one, which were revealed by the questions posed during the hearing. 56. Regarding the annexes sent with the State’s brief with final arguments, the representatives indicated that they were time-barred and that this information had “not been assessed at the proper moment by the other parties during the proceedings, and they had not had the opportunity to include it in their assessment of the evidence in their final oral or written arguments, so that introducing it at this point infringed their procedural rights.” Likewise, the Commission indicated that these documents had not been submitted at the appropriate procedural moment, and this should be understood, “notwithstanding the assessment that the Court may make of the documents requested as helpful evidence.” It also indicated that several of the annexes were “aimed at questioning the representatives’ lists of victims and those with the Commission’s report.” 57. Regarding the annexes to the final arguments of the representatives,51 the State did not contest them, and the Court incorporates them into the case file. As regards the three documents with the censuses,52 the Court considers that this documentation is useful to determine the lists of presumed victims in the case, so that it incorporates them into the case file in application of Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure. These annexes will be assessed with the whole body of evidence and as pertinent for this case. Regarding the other documents, the Court deems that the presentation of these documents was time-barred, so that they will not be considered in this Judgment. 58. With regard to the annexes to the State’s final written arguments, the Court indicates that several of these refer to judicial measures and proceedings concerning the events that form the factual framework of the case.53 In addition, several of these documents were 50 It indicated, in particular, that: (a) they should be have been individualized and their purpose defined at the time the representatives presented their brief with motions, arguments and evidence; (b) furthermore, they were not included on the definitive list presented to the Court by the representatives; (c) there was no justification of force majeure or grave impediment that would have prevented their presentation at the appropriate procedural moment, and (d) the State was unable to question the deponents or present observations on the statements. 51 The documents presented by the representatives entitled “Certification, members of the Higher Council” and “Certification Spokesperson Río Sucio” 52 Documents: (a) Census inhabitants Río Sucio; (b) Census Vivir Mejor program, and (c) Census Social Solidarity Network. 53 These documents are: (a) report of the Prosecutor General’s Office on the voluntary confessions provided by the demobilized members of the FARC, who were part of the José María Córdoba Bloc; (b) copy of the statement made by J.E.V.R. Romaña on March 3, 2007, before the 21st Special Prosecutor attached to the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit; (c) copy of the sworn statement made by J.E.V.R. Romaña on November 5, 2008, 19