required in administrative proceedings, the guarantees that must be applied by ad hoc courts in administrative proceedings, and the guarantees required to determine the rights of the individual in light of the American Convention, and 4) Da niel Hugo Martins, expert witness proposed by the State, specialist in administrative law, who testified on the legal regime of the Central Bank of Uruguay, the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, and the Judiciary: their institutional status and powers, the system and procedure to appeal their actions, and the administrative and jurisdictional proceedings regime. B. Admission of the evidence 19. In its final written arguments, the State indicated that the evidence consisting of testimony and documents concerning the alleged violations of Articles 21 and 24 of the Convention argued by the representatives was “not pertinent,” because said alleged violations were not part of the purpose of the instant case. Furthermore, when presenting the documentary evidence requested by the President of the Court in his Order of January 31, 2011 (supra paras. 7 and 8), which consisted in an expert appraisal prepared by Marcelo Arámbulo for a domestic criminal proceeding relating to the alleged responsibility of the authorities of the Central Bank of Uruguay for the 2002 banking crisis in Uruguay, the State indicated that “the facts to which said expert report refers [were] outside the purpose of these proceedings”; consequently, it should be considered that “the evidence offered [...] at the respective procedural opportunity was not pertinent.” Similarly, with regard to certain documents submitted by the representatives together with their final written arguments, Uruguay indicated “the absolute inadmissibility and inappropriateness of the presentation of two criminal judgments concerning two former officials of the Central Bank of Uruguay,” because “the specific acts that resulted in these criminal judgments [...] do not bear the slightest relation” to the facts of the instant case. 20. In this regard, the Court finds that, in order to rule on the State’s observations, it must determine, in the respective prior considerations of this judgment (infra paras. 32 to 41), whether or not the facts that these documents and testimony seek to prove are part of the purpose of the case. To this end, the Court will determine the factual framework of this case and then rule on the admissibility of the said evidence. B.1 Admission of the documentary evidence 21. In the instant case, as in others, the Court grants probative value to those documents presented opportunely by the parties which were not contested or opposed and the authenticity of which was not questioned.13 The documents requested by the Court or its President as helpful evidence (supra para. 12) are incorporated into the body of evidence in application of the provisions of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. 22. The Court notes that any evidence submitted outside the appropriate procedural opportunities is not admissible, except when it falls within the exceptions established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure; namely, force majeure, serious impediment or if it is evidence that refers to an event which occurred after said the procedural opportunities. In the instant case, the Court admits ex officio, under Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure, the documents that were forwarded by the parties, outside the appropriate procedural opportunities, which were not contested or opposed and the 13 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 1, para. 140; Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 12, para. 32, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela, supra note 12, para. 18. 8