pertinent to transfer the said expert opinions, because their purpose is outside the factual framework of the instant case (infra para. 55). Psychological reports prepared by the Florida Center for Survivors of Torture 21. On November 18, 2011, the representative forwarded the above-mentioned “expert opinion on the psychological reports prepared by the Florida Center for Survivors of Torture” and attached the curricula vitae of “the psychologists who prepared the said opinion” without providing any explanation in this regard (supra para. 15). On November 28, 2011, the representative was reminded that the persons who prepared the opinion “were not the person proposed at the appropriate occasion and required by the President in the first operative paragraph of his Order of November 2, 2011,” because “[t]his expert opinion should have been prepared by James Jean.” The representative and the State presented observations on this opinion in briefs of November 30 and December 1, 2011, respectively, even though such observations had not been requested by either the President or the Court; however, they did not make any other reference in this regard subsequently. The representative asked the Court to accept the psychological opinion prepared by the Florida Center for Survivors of Torture because, when offering it, she had indicated that it would be issued by this entity, but had not specified or given the name of the person who would issue the psychological reports because, given the way the Center operates, “the psychological report […] must be prepared by psychologists who are specialists in torture, [and] James Jean merely supervises and decides when Raúl Díaz has completed each stage of the program […].” For its part, the State indicated that it “reject[ed] and contest[ed] the [said] expert opinion […] because the conditions agreed and approved in the Order […] were not met […].” 22. The Court has verified that, in the Order of November 2, 2011, the President of the Court established that the expert witness proposed by the representative “James Jean, Specialist of the Florida Center for Survivors of Torture assigned to the case of Raúl José Díaz Peña,” would provide an “expert opinion on the psychological, mental and personal effects and the effects on his health that the conditions endured during his imprisonment had had on Raúl José Díaz Peña.” This opinion was to be provided by affidavit and sent to the Court by November 18, 2011.16 The representative did not contest this decision or communicate with the Court. On the said date, the representative forwarded a psychological assessment prepared on March 25, 2011, by the psychologists Gisell Estrella Viña, Psy.D. and Maribel Del Río-Roberts, Psy.D., of the Center for Assessment and Intervention, Department of Applied Interdisciplinary Studies, Nova Southeastern University, which had been requested by Raúl Díaz “to determine his current level of general functioning, to assist in the process of requesting political asylum, and to explore the socio-emotional difficulties that he [was] experiencing”; the said assessment was notarized on the day it was prepared. Evidently, the persons who prepared the psychological assessment submitted to the Court are not the person who was proposed by the representative at the appropriate opportunity and required by the President of the Court. In addition, the assessment was prepared prior to the President’s Order of November 2, 2011. Consequently, the Court finds that the said assessment does not correspond to the expert evidence required by the President in his Order and that, in the way in which it was provided, it is not appropriate to admit it. Consequently, the Court will not take it into consideration in its decision. Time-barred evidence presented by the State 23. The Court notes that evidence provided outside the appropriate procedural occasions is not admissible, unless it complies with the exceptions established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, namely, force majeure, grave impediment or if it relates to a fact that occurred after the said procedural occasions. In the instant case, together with its final written arguments, the 16 Cf. Order of the President of the Court of November 2, 2011, first and second operative paragraphs. 8