immediately by the Court and the other parties. 42 In this case, neither the parties nor the Commission opposed or made observations on the content and authenticity of such documents. 43 40. With regard to the video presented by the Commission, 44 which was not contested and the authenticity of which was not challenged, the Court will assess its content in the context of the body of evidence and applying the rules of sound judicial discretion. 45 41. Regarding the procedural occasion for the presentation of documentary evidence, according to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure such evidence should generally be presented together with the briefs submitting the case, with motions and arguments, or answering the submission, as applicable. The Court recalls that evidence provided outside the appropriate procedural occasions is not admissible, unless it complies with one of the exceptions established in the said Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure: namely, force majeure, grave impediment, or if it refers to an event that occurred after the procedural moments indicated. 46 42. In its final written arguments, the State contested the admissibility of annexes 22, 41 and 44 of the brief with motions, arguments and evidence, because their contents differed from the documents listed in the said brief. In particular, it indicated that, instead of including the judgment of November 3, 2011, annex 22 included records of various hearing sessions; annex 41 contained a table with minimum wages, but also a table calculating loss of earnings, and annex 44, instead of including the records of the hearings of the second oral proceeding, included various powers of attorney and documents from members of Jeremías Osorio Rivera’s family. In this regard, it affirmed that “this error by the representatives should not have been forwarded to the State, or affect the impartiality of an international litigation as regards providing equal opportunities to the Commission, the presumed victims and the defendant State.” Accordingly, the State asked that the said annexes not be admitted and, therefore, not form part of the body of evidence in this case. 43. On this point, the Court notes that, on October 25, 2012, when sending their annexes to the motions and arguments brief, the representatives forwarded a “corrigendum with regard to the motions, arguments and evidence brief.” Accordingly, a note of the Secretariat dated December 3, 2012, indicated the differences in the way in which the annexes numbered 22, 41 and 44 were 42 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 26, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para. 34. 43 The following documents were provided only by electronic link: several merits reports issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; several applications submitted to the Inter-American Court by the Inter-American Commission; the 1996 Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission; Law 26,926 published in El Peruano on February 21, 1998; the judgment delivered by the Special Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in case file No. A.V. 19– 2001 on April 7, 2009; the judgment delivered by the Constitutional Court in case file No. 2488-2002-HC/TC of March 18, 2004; male life expectancy in 1991 in the rural areas of Peru according to the United Nations Population Fund sources; Fact Sheet No. 32 of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights entitled “Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-terrorism”; the Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario and Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, and the information that appears on the website of the Sistema Integral de Salud (SIS) [the State Health Care System]. 44 Forensic Team, 2011 video related to report 166-2011 of Case of 11,845: Peru (file before the Commission, volume II, folio 1155). 45 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 93, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 64. 46 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 40, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, supra, para. 40. 17