104. The representatives and the Commission also submitted several press reports together with their various briefs, and this Court has held that they can be considered if they report well-known public facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case.72 The Court will therefore admit those documents that are complete, or if at least their source and date of publication can be ascertained. 73 105. Other articles or texts discuss facts associated with the case, which the Court understands to be written pieces containing the authors’ statements or comments, intended for public dissemination, and it will thus include them. 106. The Court notes that evidence submitted outside the procedural time limits is not admissible, except as stated in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, that is, in cases of force majeure or serious impediment, or if it addresses an event that occurred subsequent to the expiration of the time limit. 107. Both the representatives and the State, subsequent to their main briefs, submitted the ruling by the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, delivered on October 15, 2012, as part of the proceedings against Vladimiro Montesinos Torres, Roberto Huamán Ascurra, Nicolás de Bari Hermoza Ríos and Jesús Zamudio Aliaga. The State also submitted the ruling by the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court on July 24, 2013. The Court notes that these items of evidence make reference to decisions delivered by domestic judicial authorities as part of ongoing judicial processes involving the facts of the instant case. It finds that this evidence of facts that occurred subsequent to April 24 and August 17, 2012 can be admitted under the terms of Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 108. When they were planning and conducting the procedure to reconstruct the facts, the State and the representatives cited a number of documents. Specifically, the State proposed ten official administrative and judicial documents to use as sources, 74 and the representatives asked that, in addition to the information supplied by the State, other sources containing relevant statements also be considered for conducting the reconstruction exercise. 75 Most of these documents had been submitted earlier. Because some of them had not previously been Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 146, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 41. 72 Annex 9 to the pleadings and motions brief, identified as “press clippings,” includes a press note labeled “El Comercio newspaper, report from December 18, 2000, ‘Emerretistas fueron capturados vivos’”, indicating neither date nor source. The representatives clarified that the file copy of this press note identifies it coming from the El Comercio newspaper, December 18, 2000. Thus, and in view of the fact that the State did not challenge its authenticity, the Court will admit it in the understanding that the source and date of publication are as indicated by the representatives. 73 To wit: (1) Ruling by the Transitory Criminal Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, July 24, de 2013 (Writ of Nullity-R.N.- N° 3521-2012); (2) Ruling by the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, October 15, 2012 (case file No. 26-2002); (3) Plan of Operation A: “Nipón 96” (1st Div. 1ª Div FFEE), January, 1997; (4) Plan of Operation B: “Nipón” 96/”TENAZ” (Tenaz Patrol), March, 1997; (5) Annex 05: Evacuation of hostages, annex to Plan of Operation B: “Nipón 96”/”TENAZ” (“Tenaz” Patrol); (6) Report No. 01/1st Div. FFEE, April 30, 1997. Report on implementation of the Plan of Operation “Chavín de Huántar” by the counterterrorist task force; (7) Annex No. 02 to Report No. 01/1st Div FFEE, April 30, 1997: Operations Report No. 001/Pat “TENAZ”. Report on the intervention by the “TENAZ” Patrol under Operation “Chavín de Huántar”; (8) Proceedings for Reconstruction of the Events in the Replica of the Residence of the Japanese ambassador, June 3, 2003; (9) Report on intervention by law enforcement in compliance with the Plan of Operation “Chavín de Huántar”, April 22, 1997, and (10) Floor plan of the first two floors of the residence, which are part of the case file in the military courts. 74 These include Opinion No. 13-2006 by the Third Special Prosecutor on Crimes of Corruption by Public Officials; the letter delivered by Hidetaka Ogura to the Judiciary of Peru on August 20, 2001; the statement delivered by Hidetaka Ogura in a public hearing during the criminal trial in the domestic courts, and statements by Raúl Robles Reynoso and Marcial Teodorico Torres Arteaga to the Provincial Special Prosecutor and in public hearing during the criminal proceedings in the domestic courts. 75