unrelated to the other facts of the proceedings. Therefore, their inclusion within the factual framework of the instant case is inadmissible. 69. With regard to the mining exploration activities in front of the coast of La Mosquitia and the enactment of the Fisheries Law in Honduras, the Court considers that, as argued by the representatives, these facts are supervening insofar as they occurred after the issue of the Merits Report. However, the Court considers that the alleged facts are unrelated to the central issue of the case. In addition, the Court lacks sufficient evidence to rule on the presumed impacts that those facts might have on the territory of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community. Consequently, their inclusion in the factual framework of this case is inadmissible. VII EVIDENCE A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 70. The Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives and the State, attached to their principal briefs (supra paras. 2.g, 5 and 6). The Court also received the documents it had requested as helpful evidence, based on Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure (supra paras. 13 and 15) as well as some documents following the on-site procedure (infra para. 73). In addition, the Court received: (1) the statements of witnesses Jesús Ramón Flores and Everardo Diaz Bonilla proposed by the State; (2) the opinion of expert witness Christopher Loperena proposed by the representatives; (3) the statements of presumed victims Antonio Bernárdez Suazo; Armando Castillo Núñez; Dionisia Avila Castillo; Edelberta Ávila Castillo; Edito Suazo Ávila; Guillermo Martinez Batiz; Joaquin Thomas Rodriguez; Paulino Mejía Castillo; Santos Ávila Castillo and Santos Celi Suazo Castillo proposed by the representatives, and (4) the opinion of expert witness James Anaya proposed by the Commission. Regarding the evidence provided during the public hearing, the Court received the statements of presumed victims Lidia Palacios and Doroteo Thomas Rodriguez proposed by the representatives. In addition, the Court incorporated the expert opinion of José Aylwin previously provided in the case of the Triunfo de la Cruz Garifuna Community and its members v. Honduras. 35 B. Admission of the evidence B. 1 Admission of the documentary evidence 71. In this case, as in others, the Court admits those documents submitted by the parties and the Commission at the appropriate procedural moment that have not been contested or challenged, and the authenticity of which has not been questioned. 36 The documents requested by the Court, and that were provided by the parties after the public hearing and the on-site visit, are incorporated into the body of evidence pursuant to Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure (supra paras. 15 and 19). The purpose of these statements was established in the order of the President of July 31, 2014, supra, para. 10. 36 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits, supra, para. 140, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2015. Series C No. 300, para. 12. 35 20