26 Procedure. The Court will take into consideration the observations of the State within the body of evidence, in application of the rules of sound judgment. 63. Brazil, in its final written arguments, offered the opinion of a person on the expert report of expert witness Uprimny in addition to press materials, which according to the State, contradicts the opinion of the expert witness. The representatives argued that the person that issued said response, aside from not being an expert witness summoned by the Court, rendered an opinion that was not offered in a timely manner as evidence, in the State’s response, nor did it argue force majeure, serious impediment, or supervening facts for the presentation of said evidence. As a consequence, this entails evidence presented inopportunely and that is time-barred. In relation with the accompanying press material, they indicated that it is not directly related with the case and has not been cited in this opinion. 64. The Court observes that the presentation of said documents is not enshrined in the rules of procedure, and it was neither justified by one of the circumstances that, as exceptions, allow for the presentation of evidence that is time-barred, nor requested by the Court. Based on the aforementioned, the Court will not admit the documents that allegedly respond to the expert opinion of Mr. Uprimny. 65. The representatives submitted with their final written arguments proof of expenses related to the present case and “a compliment to the expert opinion” of Mr. Bicudo. In relation to this last document, the State considered its presentation to be time-barred and inadmissible. 66. The Court notes that the presentation of the “complimentary expert opinion” is not enshrined in the rules of procedure, was not justified by any of the circumstances that, as exceptions, allow for the presentation of time-barred evidence, nor was it requested by the Court. Based on the aforementioned, the Court will not admit the documents related to the mentioned complementary expert opinion. On the other hand, in regard to the proof of expenses submitted by the representatives, the Court will only consider those documents submitted with the final written arguments that are related to the costs and expenses incurred throughout the procedure before this Court, subsequent to the brief of pleadings and motions. C. Admission of declarations of the alleged victims, of the testimonial and expert evidence 67. In regard to the statements of the alleged victims and the witnesses and expert opinions rendered at the public hearing and during the sworn statements, the Court deems them relevant only in what regards the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order requesting them,55 and together with the other elements that form the body of evidence, taking into account the observations formulated by the parties.56 55 Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”). Summons to a Public Hearing, supra note 6. See also Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”). Reconsideration, supra note 47, Considering clauses 4 to 11. 56 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Perú. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra 45, para. 50, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 47.