observations on the preliminary objections filed by the State, two annexes referring to two judicial rulings of July 24, 2017 and November 3, 2020. 31 The Court confirms that these documents predate the pleadings and motions brief and that the representatives have not justified the reason why, pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, they should be exceptionally admitted. Consequently, these documents are inadmissible because they are time-barred. 41. The Court also received documents attached to the final written arguments of the alleged victim’s representatives 32 and of the State. 33 In a note of the Secretariat dated September 28, 2022, the parties and the Commission were given a period of time to submit observations to the annexes presented by the representatives and the State in their final written arguments. On October 6, 2022, the Commission indicated that it had no observations to make. On October 7, 2022, the State and the representatives submitted their respective observations. 42. Regarding Annexes 1 and 2 submitted by the representatives, the State pointed out that they had not justified the “reasons, grounds or relevance” of said annexes. It added that these documents were not related to the facts that are the subject of this international dispute. With respect to Annex 3, the State noted that it was dated prior to the submission of the pleadings and motions brief, and was therefore time-barred. It also pointed out that it was not related to the facts of the case. Finally, with regard to Annexes 4 and 5, the State made assessments of their evidentiary value. 43. The Court notes that Annexes 1, 2, 4 and 5 attached by the representatives are documents issued after the filing of their main briefs and, therefore, are evidence of supervening facts related to the present case, regardless of the evidentiary value granted to them by this Court. Consequently, in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court decides to admit them. With regard to Annex 3, the Court finds that this document is indeed dated prior to the pleadings and motions brief and that the representatives have not justified the reason why, under the terms of Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, it should be exceptionally admitted. Consequently, said document is inadmissible because it is time-barred. 44. On the other hand, with regard to the document attached by the State, the representatives assessed it and requested that it be taken into account by the Court in its analysis of this case. The Court notes that although the document provided by the State is dated August 22, 2022 (that is, after the submission of the answering brief) it 31 Annex 1: Superior Court of Justice of Lima, Second Constitutional Court of Lima, File No. 10819-2017, Decision No. 1, of July 24, 2017, and Annex 2: Constitutional Court of Peru, File No. 1739-2018-PA/TC, Case of Oscar Ugarteche, Judgment of November 3, 2020, Individual vote of Judge Miranda Canales. 32 Annex 1: Constitutional Court of Peru, File No. 02653-2021-PA/TC, Case of Paredes Aljovín. Judgment of April 19, 2022; Annex 2: Constitutional Court of Peru, File No. 02743-2021-PA/TC, Case of Martinot Urbina, Judgment of April 5, 2022; Annex 3: Constitutional Court of Peru. File No. 1739-2018-PA/TC, Case of Oscar Ugarteche. Judgment of November 3, 2020; Annex 4: Receipt for payment made by DEMUS to the lawyer for the preparation of briefs, September 24, 2021, and Annex 5: Receipts for payments made by DEMUS after September 24, 2021, and for psychological treatment in the context of the litigation before the Inter-American Court on the following dates: February 9, 2022, March 16, 2022, May 17, 2022, May 25, 2022, June 27, 2022, July 19, 2022, July 27, 2022, August 10, 2022, August 18, 2022, August 19, 2022, August 27, 2022, August 31, 2022, and September 26, 2022. 33 Annex 1: Information on activities carried out by the Directorate of Human Rights Policies and Management, regarding case No. 13.505 – Crissthian Manuel Olivera Fuentes. 15