50. In briefs submitted by the representative dated September 8 and November 30, 2020, and March 11 and July 12, 2021, as well as from the State dated November 16 and December 3, 2020, both parties put forward documents not submitted previously, arguing they amounted to new or supervening facts. The Court recalls that, in accordance with Article 57(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the proper time to present the documentary evidence is, in general, with the briefs submitting the case, with pleadings and motions, or answering the submission of the case, as applicable. In this regard, the Court recalls that evidence submitted outside the proper procedural stage is inadmissible, unless it is covered by the exceptions established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure: namely, force majeure, serious impediment, or if it refers to an event that occurred after the said procedural occasions. 38 In this sense, a number of documents submitted by the parties in these briefs describe facts related to the case that took place after the pleadings and motions brief and the answering brief were filed. These documents are therefore evidence of supervening facts, pursuant to the terms of Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, and there being no objection to them, they are admitted. 39 Undated documents for which it is not possible to determine whether they refer to events subsequent to the submission of the main briefs40 and documents that cannot be accessed through the hyperlink provided41 are not admitted (supra para. 49). For its part, the State indicated that the document cited by the representative in its brief of July 12, 2021, is not “related […] to the facts” of the case. The Commission indicated that available at: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/60000-64999/63251/texact.htm; xxvii) Law No. 24,043, available at: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/0-4999/442/texact.htm; xxvii) Law No. 26,564, available at: http://www.jus.gob.ar/media/157486/Ley%2026564.pdf; xxix) Judgment issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation on July 13, 2007, M. 2333. XLII. et al., “Mazzeo, Julio Lilo et al. regarding rec. of cassation and unconstitutionality,” available at: http://sjconsulta.csjn.gov.ar/sjconsulta/documentos/verDocumentoByIdLinksJSP.html?idDocumento=6305031&cac he=1596248222950; xxx) statement published by the Public Prosecutor's Office on March 23, 2020, entitled "24 de marzo: la Procuraduría de Crímenes contra la Humanidad actualizó los datos sobre el proceso de juzgamiento," available at: https://www.fiscales. gob.ar/lesa-humanidad/24-de-marzo-la-procuraduria-de-crimes-contra-lahumanidad-updated-the-data-on-the-trial-process/; xxxi) Law No. 25,778, available at: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/85000-89999/88138/norma.htm; xxxii) article published in the newspaper Página 12 on May 11, 107, entitled “Un rechazo que se convirtió en inmensa multitud”, available at: https://www.pagina12.com.ar/36972-un-rechazo-que-se-convirtio-en-inmensa-multitud; xxxiii) Law No. 27,362, available at: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/verNorma.do?id=274607; xxxiv) Judgment issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation on December 4, 2018, available at: http://sjconsulta.csjn.gov.ar/sjconsulta/documentos/verDocumentoByIdLinksJSP.html?idDocumento=7493413&cac he=1596267246165; xxxv) Law No. 26,679, available at: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/verNorma.do;jsessionid=9CBDBB43E8EE9450C27A19514B1B2588?id =181888; and xxxvi) monthly valuation of the basic food basket and the total basic basket. Greater Buenos Aires, June 2020, Ministry of Economy, available at: https://www.indec.gob.ar/uploads/informesdeprensa/canasta_07_205381DE6C24.pdf. 38 Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, par. 17, and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 26, 2021. Series C No. 431, par. 32. 39 Includes the following evidence: a) included by the representative in its brief of September 8, 2020: article published in The Guardian on September 3, 2020, entitled “Operation Condor: the cold war conspiracy that terrorized South America,” available at: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/sep/03/operation-condor-the-illegal-statenetwork-that-terrorized-south-america; (b) provided by the State on November 16, 2020: i) communications issued by the Public Prosecutor’s Office on August 28 and October 16, 2020, and ii) audiovisual record of the hearing livestreamed on October 16, 2020, Judicial Information Center; (c) provided by the representative on November 30, 2020: verdict issued by Oral Criminal Court No. 1 on November 27, 2020, case No. 3002; d) provided by the State on December 3, 2020: i) verdict issued by Oral Criminal Court No. 1 on November 27, 2020, case No. 3002, and ii) audiovisual record of the hearing broadcast live on November 27, 2020, Judicial Information Center; and e) provided by the representative on March 11, 2021: i) Judgment issued by Oral Criminal Court No. 1 on March 3, 2021, case No. 3002; ii) brief of March 9, 2021, filed by the Attorney General of the Support Unit for Cases of Human Rights Violations during State Terrorism before the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 1, case No. 2261; iii) brief filed on February 18, 2021 by Eduardo Marques Iraola before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, and iv) Order issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in February 2021, case No. 2637/2004. 40 The following document, sent by the representative on September 8, 2020: undated document filed by Eduardo Marques Iraola before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. 41 The following documents, cited by the representative in its brief of November 30, 2020: i) record of the hearing of the oral proceeding on October 23, 2020, and ii) news article on calling of a hearing by the Roma Court of Cassation. 16