- 12 procedural equality is harmed because it can be found immediately by the Court, the other party, and the Commission.34 34. With regard to the procedural moment at which documentary evidence should be submitted, according to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure it should be presented, in general, with the briefs submitting the case, with pleadings and motions, or answering the submission of the case, as applicable. Evidence forwarded outside the appropriate procedural moments is not admissible, except in the cases established in the said Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure; namely, force majeure, serious impediment or if it relates to a fact that took place after the said procedural moments. 35. After testifying at the public hearing, expert witness Perfecto Andrés Ibáñez submitted a written report relating to his opinion, and expert witness Antonio Maldonado Paredes submitted a copy of the “Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the violations of human rights in Honduras since the coup d’état of 28 June 2009.”35 Copies of both documents were handed over to the parties and to the Commission and they were allowed to present their observations. The admissibility of these documents was not challenged and their authenticity was not contested. Regarding the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Court notes that it was also provided by the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief by means of an electronic link. Since it already formed part of the case file, there is no point in making a separate analysis of the admissibility of the copy provided by expert witness Maldonado Paredes. Regarding the written report of expert witness Perfecto Andrés Ibáñez, the Court admits this document, considering it useful for deciding this case, insofar as it relates to the purpose of this expert opinion duly defined by the President in the terms of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. 36. During the public hearing the State submitted a copy of the Law on the Council of the Judiciary and the Judicial Service, the Regulations governing the Law on the Council of the Judiciary and the Judicial Service, the rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council, and certifications of ten rulings delivered on applications for amparo.36 Neither the representatives nor the Commission contested the admission of the domestic norms provided by the State. Considering them useful for deciding the case, the Court admits the said domestic norms in the terms of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. 37. However, with regard to the judgments on amparo provided by the State, the representatives contested their admission, considering that they were time-barred and that the State had not offered any reason of force majeure that would have prevented it from presenting them with its answering brief. Moreover, they indicated that the said decisions bore no relationship to the facts of this case, because they were issued in a different context, mainly against decisions of the new Council of the Judiciary and the Judicial Service, rather than against those of the Supreme Court of Justice as in this case, with a different purpose, and by a Constitutional Chamber with a different composition to the one that decided the cases of the presumed victims. In this regard, the Court notes that, in its answering brief, the State had indicated that, in addition to the “rulings on amparo guarantees” already attached to note No. SP-A-90-2012 of June 25, 2012, presented during the 34 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No 165, para. 26, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 12. 35 Cf. Record of documents received. Public hearing of February 2 and 3, 2015. Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras (merits file, folio 1169). 36 Specifically, the State presented the following: (1) copy of Official Gazette of the Republic of Honduras No. 25,657 dated October 17, 1998, which contains the rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council issued on August 4, 1988, and (2) certifications of rulings: AA-0730=12 of July 28, 2014, AA 627=11 of August 14, 2012, AA 966-2012 of April 23, 2014, AA 205=14 of September 23, 2014, AA788=09 of August 17, 2010, AA 25=11 of October 22, 2013, 0006-2014 of October 14, 2014, 0125-2014 of June 3, 2014, 0123-2014 of November 10, 2014, and AA 0209=14 of November 11, 2014.