case, on the admissibility of arguments concerning the factual framework in order to safeguard the procedural balance between the parties. 76 28. In this case, a dispute exists regarding the inclusion of various contextual facts by the representatives. In particular, the State has asked that the Court exclude the facts described by the representatives in the section on the “criminalization of obstetric emergencies in El Salvador,” “in which they describe obstetric emergencies, the concept and approach; the absolute prohibition of abortion in El Salvador and the de facto criminalization of obstetric emergencies; the consequences of the absolute prohibition of abortion and the alleged criminalization of obstetric emergencies on the exercise of the medical profession, and the barriers to access to justice for women criminalized due to suffering obstetric emergencies.” 29. The Court notes that, in the section on context of the Merits Report, the Commission indicated that “[g]iven that in this case Manuela was convicted of the crime of homicide,” the Commission did not examine further the context of the criminalization of abortion in El Salvador. However, the Commission underscored “[t]he severity of certain criminal laws in El Salvador which meant that, at times, women are prosecuted for the offense of abortion or for the crime of homicide in proceedings in which different due process guarantees are violated and pretrial detention is used abusively.” The Commission also included the opinions of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women concerning the criminalization of abortion and its effects in El Salvador. They mentioned “cases in which women whose health was seriously at risk have turned to the health system and been reported on suspicion of having had an abortion,” and “the incarceration of women immediately after visiting a hospital to seek medical attention, because the health care personnel report them for fear of themselves being punished.” The Commission also mentioned that it “has expressed its concern owing to possible violations of due process in cases of women who are tried and convicted for offenses related to abortion, including aggravated homicide.” 30. Consequently, the Court notes that the Commission’s Merits Report includes the criminalization of abortion in El Salvador and the alleged effect of this in cases of obstetric emergencies and infanticide as part of the context of this case. To the extent that the facts included by the representatives are pertinent to explain and clarify the said context and its relationship to this case, the Court will take them into account. VI EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 31. The Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives and the State, as well as those requested by the Court or its President as helpful evidence and, as in other cases, it admits these in the understanding that they were presented at the appropriate procedural moment (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure)77 and that their admissibility was not contested or challenged. Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 58, and Case of Valenzuela Ávila v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 11, 2019. Series C No. 386, para. 40. 76 In general, and according to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, documentary evidence may be presented together with the brief submitting the case, the pleading and motions brief, or the answering brief, as applicable, and evidence forwarded outside these procedural occasions is inadmissible, subject to the exceptions established in the said Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (namely, force majeure, grave impediment) or unless it relates to a supervening fact – in other words, a fact that occurred after the said procedural moments. 77 15