39. The Court finds that, both in the submission of the case, and in Merits Report No. 10/19, the Inter-American Commission identified only the mother and father of Márcia Barbosa de Souza as alleged victims of the violations alleged in this case. Thus, in order for the Court to consider Ms. Barbosa de Souza’s sister as an alleged victim, it would be necessary for one of the exceptions provided for in Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure to be present, which is evidently not the case. 40. Therefore, in application of Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure, and in the absence of any of the exceptions set forth in Article 35(2), the Court will consider as alleged victims in the case sub judice the mother and father of Márcia Barbosa de Souza,30 as identified in the Merits Report of the Inter-American Commission. VI EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 41. The Court received various documents submitted as evidence by the Commission, the representatives and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 3, 6 and 7). As in other cases, the Court admits those documents presented in a timely manner (Article 57 of the Rules)31 by the parties and the Commission, the authenticity of which has not been questioned or challenged.32 42. At the same time, the Court observes that the representatives presented, together with their final written arguments (supra para. 11), a series of documents as annexes. 33 In this regard, the Commission indicated that it had no observations. In turn, although the State presented various observations on the annexes to the final written arguments of the representatives, these considerations refer to their evidentiary value, not to their admissibility. Consequently, the Court admits the aforementioned documents given that Annexes 1 to 6 refer to aspects discussed at the public hearing of the case and to the questions asked by the judges during said hearing, while Annexes 7 to 9 are documents provided as evidence of the expenses incurred by the representatives in the litigation of this case. The considerations made by Brazil will be taken into account in the assessment of the evidence. B. Admissibility of the testimonial and expert evidence This conclusion does not imply a denial of the suffering endured by the sister or any other family members of Márcia Barbosa de Souza as a result of the alleged human rights violations in the case under analysis. 31 Documentary evidence may be submitted, in general and in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, together with the briefs of submission of the case, of pleadings and motions or of response, as appropriate. Evidence submitted outside these procedural opportunities is not admissible, except in the circumstances established in Article 57(2) of the Rules (force majeure or serious impediment) or if it is a supervening fact, that is, it occurred after those procedural moments. 32 Cf. Article 57 of the Rules; see also Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2021. Series C No. 434, para. 33. 33 These documents are: Collective decision No. 1.721/2009, issued by the Regional Electoral Court of Acre (Annex 1); decision on Special Appeal AGR 2000215- 90.1999.822.0000, issued by the Court of Justice of Rondônia (Annex 2); decision on Special Appeal AGR 0027924- 33.2005.8.11.0000, issued by the Court of Justice do Mato Grosso (Annex 3); decision on Special Appeal AGR 0043167-46.2007.8.11.0000, issued by the Court of Justice of Mato Grosso (Annex 4); decision on Habeas Corpus No 209.076 – BA (2011/0130407-9), issued by the Superior Court of Justice (Annex 5); Ordinary Proceeding 0000013- 19.2015.8.03.0000 AP, Court of Justice of Amapá (Annex 6); Tables of expenses and the respective receipts for expenses of GAJOP (Annex 7); Tables of expenses and the respective receipts of CEJIL (Annex 8); and Expenses related to the request for access to the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund – table of costs for preparation and sending of expert opinions and statements (Annex 9). 30 -14-