63. The State asked the Court not to admit annex 1 of the written notes of the deponent for information purposes, Carlos Bacigalupo, consisting in a statistical report, because this evidence “was never requested by the Inter-American Commission or by the representatives […] in compliance with the procedure established in the Rules of Procedure,” and also “its authenticity cannot be corroborated and the State has not been able to question its author.” In this regard, the Court notes that the deponent Carlos Bacigalupo attached a statistical report prepared by the Human Rights Data Analysis Group as grounds for his conclusions on the possibility that the cafeteria employees were among the bodies that have been inadequately identified, in keeping with what Mr. Bacigalupo indicated during his statement at the public hearing on the merits in this case. The Court considers that this annex constitutes information provided by the deponent as grounds for his conclusions and does not constitute a statement that must be submitted to the said regulatory requirements, or regarding which the possibility of questioning the other party could be required. 64. The representatives presented alleged supervening facts and the corresponding supporting documentation with their brief with observations on the preliminary objections and when forwarding their final list of deponents (supra para. 9). In particular, the representatives presented alleged “supervening facts” concerning: (i) the judicial proceedings that are underway in relation to the events of this case, and (ii) on constitutional and legal reforms that allegedly contain provisions that are contrary to the Convention, which would affect the State’s obligation to investigate. 69 In this regard, the Court notes that not all the information and documentation on the criminal proceedings is subsequent to the presentation of the motions and arguments brief. 70 The Court considers that it is in order to admit the evidence of events subsequent to June 25, 2012, pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. The Court also considers that the other documents relating to the criminal proceedings correspond to judicial actions that took place very close to the date of presentation of the motions and arguments brief, so that it is reasonable that the representatives did not have access to a copy until after June 25, 2012. Consequently, and considering their usefulness to understand all the domestic criminal proceedings, the Court also finds it in order to admit the said documentation. In addition, regarding the information and documents concerning the constitutional and legal reforms, the Court admits them procedurally in accordance with the said Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, because they refer to norms adopted after the presentation of the motions and arguments brief. However, the Court recalls that it is not its function to review domestic law in the abstract. 71 The Court does not find it necessary to rule on the said reforms in this 69 In their brief with observations on the preliminary objections of March 17, 2013, the representatives presented information and documents regarding: legislative decision No. 1 of July 31, 2012, “establishing juridical instruments of transitional justice under article 22 of the Constitution and issuing other provisions”; legislative decision No. 2 of December 27, 2012, reforming the military criminal justice system, and “amending articles 116,152 and 221 of the 1991 Colombian Constitution,” and open letter from mandate holders under the Special Proceedings of the Human Rights Council to the Government and to the members of Congress of the Republic of Colombia, presented by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on October 22, 2012. In addition, in their brief of June 24, 2013, they presented information on the approval of the statutory law on the military criminal jurisdiction (Statutory bill No. 211 of 2013 Senate and 268 of 2013 Chamber), and documents relating to the “Proposal for the second plenary debate of the statutory bill by the Senate of the Republic”; Communication of the “Office of the United Nations for Human Rights commenting on the military jurisdiction” of June 14, 2013, and the “Comments of the Office in Colombia of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on some aspects of the statutory bill regulating the recent constitutional reform of the scope of military criminal justice” of June 3, 2013. 70 In their brief with observations on the preliminary objections of March 17, 2013, the representatives presented information on activities between March 6, 2012, and February 4, 2013. In particular, annexes 1 (decision of the 55th Criminal Court of March 6, 2012), 4 (report of the Prosecutor General’s Office of June 8, 2012), 5 (report of the Prosecutor General’s Office of June 15, 2012), 6 (report of the Prosecutor General’s Office of June 8, 2012) and 12 (report of April 10, 2012) are not, in fact, subsequent to the presentation of the motions and arguments brief the time limit for which expired on June 25, 2012. 71 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C 27