evidence [in the] proceedings.” They added that, in their opinion, “the presentation of the video during the time allocated to the State’s final arguments constitute[d] a grave violation of the [Court’s] Rules of Procedure and severely affect[ed] the right of defense and procedural equality.” 130. As regard the Commission, during the public hearing, Commissioner Felipe González submitted considerations with which the representatives “fully agreed,” stating that: The procedure for the admission of evidence in the hearings before the Inter-American Court includes a series of steps that […] the State has not respected, because […] [the video] was never proposed as part of the evidence, and it could not be contested by the representatives of the [presumed] victims, or eventually by the Inter-American Commission. In the future, not only in this case, this mechanism could be used by any of the parties to introduce additional evidence that has not received the corresponding authorization of the Court. 131. The State, during the meeting held prior to the public hearing, 90 asked to be allowed to transmit a video during its final oral arguments and, as in other cases, the Court authorized this, in the understanding that it was a visual aid to these arguments. The video was shown during the public hearing. However, owing to the dispute that arose between the parties and the Commission, and the objections of the representatives and the Commission, at that time the President of the Court indicated “that the Court had understood that the video was part of the State’s oral arguments, without this meaning that it was tacitly accepting it as evidence.” 132. Evidence must be presented by the parties and the Commission at the pertinent procedural moment and, to the contrary, its presentation must be duly justified, as established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. In the case of the presentation of the video during the public hearing, the State sought to incorporate it into the proceedings as evidence, without justifying its presentation based on the regulatory provisions; the Court therefore finds that it is time-barred. In any case, the State did not justify why the video could not have been made before the presentation of the answering brief, and the Court notes that, as the State itself indicated, the interviews contained in the video were conducted before the public hearing. Consequently, the video cannot be admitted as evidence in these proceedings and, therefore, will not be included in the body of evidence. Accordingly, the presumed victim’s answers to the questions posed by the State on the basis of the said video will not be included in the body of evidence, and the arguments based on the video will not be taken into account. 133. Judgment provided by the State following the public hearing. During the hearing, the State asked to be “authorized to submit [… ten] judgments handed down by different [domestic] courts with regard to amparo,” and then forwarded copies of nine judgment to the Court, indicating an Internet link to access the tenth, on October 20, 2014. The Court has verified that the said documentation was issued prior to the presentation of the answering brief and that its late submission was not justified by force majeure or serious impediment. The State requested the Court to authorize the incorporation of these documents “as supervening evidence to ensure the State’s right of defense in view of a new allegation by the representatives that the application for amparo was not effective until the promulgation of Law No. 437-03 of 2006, presented in their brief with observations on the preliminary objections.” The Court notes that, in its answering brief, the State argued the effectiveness of remedies of amparo and, on that occasion, in order to substantiate its arguments, failed to submit any evidence. Consequently, the Court 90 It is the Court’s consistent practice to invite the Commission and the parties to a meeting before the public hearing to deal with and clarify the procedural aspects of the hearing. 39