16 and motions filed by the State or, when appropriate, in the document setting out the preliminary objections and the response thereto. […] 3. Should any of the parties allege force majeure, serious impediment, or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for producing an item of evidence, the Court may, in that particular instance, admit such evidence at a time other than those indicated above, provided that the opposing parties are guaranteed the right of defense. 37. At the public hearing, Mexico submitted a copy of the file of Preliminary Investigation No. SC/179/2009/II-E of the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office based on “a principle of basic transparency and the certainty that only with all the elements” could the Court decide the present case. Moreover, at the end of the hearing, the State submitted numerous documents relating to “public, institutional and legislative policy measures” adopted by the State.37 38. The representatives observed that this documentation “was not offered when presenting its response to the application” and that the State had not alleged any of the circumstances established in Article 46(3) of the Court Rules of Procedure “to justify the time-barred presentation of the evidence in question.” Consequently, they added that it is not possible to guarantee equality of arms given the amount of information presented. As such, they “request[ed] that the evidence presented by the State at the public hearing […] be summarily rejected.” 39. Regarding the documents provided by Mexico during the public hearing that relate to different State actions and policies concerning violence against women and the investigation by the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Court observes that they were not submitted at the appropriate time; that is, with the response to the application. Moreover, Mexico failed to justify the late presentation by alleging force majeure, serious impediment, or supervening events, in other words, any of the reasons set out in the Court Rules of Procedure that, as exceptions, allow evidence to be submitted after the response to the application. Despite this, since they are pertinent and useful for determining the facts of this case and the possible consequences, in accordance with Article 47 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court decides to admit said documentation. 40. Furthermore, also during the public hearing, the expert witnesses summoned to present their expert opinions handed over written copies of their opinions, which were distributed to the parties. The Court admits these documents, because it finds them useful for this case and, also, they were not contested, and their authenticity or veracity was not questioned. 41. In addition, both the State and the representatives forwarded documents attached to their final written arguments. Among other documents, the State provided a copy of Mexico’s Official Norm: NOM-046-SSA2-2005 “Domestic Violence, Sexual Violence, and Violence against Women. Criteria for Prevention and Attention.” For their part, the representatives forwarded vouchers for expenses related to this case among other documents. While the representatives’ final arguments brief was submitted opportunely on May 24, 2010, the attachments were submitted a day after the allotted time had expired. 42. Regarding Mexico’s Official Norm NOM-046-SSA2-2005, the representatives advised that this legal provision had not been applied in the investigation into the rape of Mrs. Fernández Ortega; it did not exist at the time of the facts, and it was not applied in this case after it had been published. In addition, the norm is based on international human rights instruments and, therefore, constitutes recognition 37 Cf. Record of receipt of documents of April 30, 2010 (case file on the merits, tome IV, folio 1588).