18 55. That said, regarding the procedural moment to present documentary evidence, according to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, this should generally be presented with the briefs submitting the case, with motions and pleadings, or answering the presentation of the case, as applicable. The Court recalls that evidence forwarded outside the proper procedural opportunities is not admissible, apart from the exceptions established in the said Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure; namely, force majeure, grave impediment or if it relates to a fact that occurred following the said procedural moment.30 56. In the case of the documents provided by the State and the representative with their final written arguments, the Court notes that some of these relate to helpful evidence requested during the public hearing, in particular annexes 2 (audits and some elements of the administrative file) and 6 (certifications of the professional history of the instructing physician) forwarded by the State, and also annex 3 (Final decision No. 020/2002 issued by the Legal Advisory Services Unit of the La Paz Departmental Health Service on July 25, 2002, complete) forwarded by the representative. Also, regarding the complete case file of the criminal proceedings forwarded by the State (annex 1), it should be noted that its incorporation into the file is necessary in order to make a correct appraisal of the proceedings held by the State. Consequently, these documents must be incorporated into the body of evidence of this case under Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Regarding annexes 3 (1993 WHO manual, entitled “Female sterilization: a guide to provision of services”), 4 (Law on the Judiciary Council of December 22, 1997) and 5 (Law No. 045 against racism and all forms of discrimination of October 8, 2010) provided by the State, as well as annexes 4 to 12 (including the 1993 WHO manual, entitled “Female sterilization: a guide to provision of services,” the Code of Medical Ethics and Deontology, the Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of January 5, 2016, and the Draft articles on responsibility of States) forwarded by the representative, the Court notes that their late presentation was not justified by any of the exceptional reasons established in the Rules of Procedure, and they were not expressly requested by the Court as helpful evidence; they are therefore time-barred. Nevertheless, since it is relevant for the Court to examine the 1993 WHO manual on female sterilization and the Code of Medical Ethics and Deontology, and also the laws of Peru, Mexico and Chile, the Court incorporates these documents, ex officio, because they are useful for deciding this case. 57. With regard to the documents on costs and expenses remitted by the representative with her final written arguments,31 the Court will only consider those that refer to new costs and expenses incurred due to the proceedings before this Court; in other words, those incurred after the submission of the motions and pleadings brief. B.2 Admission of the statements and of the expert opinions 58. The Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements and expert opinions provided during the public hearing and by affidavit, insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them,32 and the purpose of this case. Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 17, and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 39. 30 Annex 1: Updated table of “costs and expenses,” and Annex 2: Invoices, receipts, vouchers, travel costs, and contracts verifying “costs and expenses.” 31 The purpose of all these statements was established in the order of the President of the Court of March 29, 2016, first and fifth operative paragraphs. The order may be consulted on the Court’s webpage using the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/iv_29_03_16.pdf 32