f) Documents issued arguments briefs after the presentation of the motions and 60. According to Articles 35(1), 36(1), 40(2) and 41(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, evidence must be presented or offered together with the briefs submitting the case, or with motions, arguments and evidence, or the answering brief, as applicable. It will not be admissible outside these procedural opportunities, save in the exceptional cases established in Article 57(2). In other words, if satisfactory justification is provided that, owing to force majeure or serious impediment, such evidence was not presented or offered on those procedural occasions, or if it refers to an event that occurred after the procedural occasions indicated.54 61. On November 19, 2012, CEJIL asked that, based on the provisions of Article 57(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the book “Seminario internacional: terrorismo y estándares en derechos humanos”55 “accompany the documentary evidence that has already been provided, taking into account its importance and usefulness for the discussion and analysis of [this] case,” and explained that “although the procedural time frames for providing evidence ha[d] already expired, it had been materially impossible to provide the book [with its motions and arguments brief], owing to the publication date,” because “the seminar was held in November 2011, and it was not until June 2012 that the first edition was published.” CEJIL indicated the electronic link at which the book was available. The State asked that this evidence be rejected because “in this particular case, the basic requirements of Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure had not been met for the Court to authorize, exceptionally, the belated incorporation of additional evidence to the proceedings.” The Court notes that the book on the said seminar was published after CEJIL had presented its motions and arguments brief, so that this documentary evidence meets the formal requirements for admissibility under Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, and will incorporate it into the body of evidence in order to assess it according to the rules of sound judicial discretion. 62. CEJIL and the FIDH asked, in their brief with observations on the helpful evidence presented by the State and in a communication of September 6, 2013 (supra para. 19), that the Court incorporate two documents: the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism on his visit to Chile issued on July 30, 2013, and the Concluding observations on the combined nineteenth to twenty-first periodic reports of Chile, adopted by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, at its eighty-third session (12 to 30 August 2013).56 The common interveners cited Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure and founded their offer on “the recent publication of [the documents], their public dissemination, and their evident usefulness and relevance for the analysis of the events that have been debated in the proceedings.” 63. The State opposed the offer of this evidence on the basis that it referred to “preliminary documents that should follow the usual procedure before becoming a final document.” It also affirmed that, since they were preliminary documents, “they only contain impressions that, following their normal course, must subsequently be crosschecked with data and comments of the State and other actors during the procedure of preparing the final [document].” The Commission presented time-barred arguments in this regard. CEJIL presented observations on 54 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 40, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 28. 55 This book was the result of the “collection and dissemination of eleven conference papers by national and international academics and experts, State authorities, and members of civil society” who took part in a seminar on terrorism and human rights standards organized by “the National Institute of Human Rights of Chile and the Regional Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and held on November 15, 2011.” 56 UN Doc. CERD/C/CHL/CO/19-21, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the combined nineteenth to twenty-first periodic reports of Chile, adopted by the Committee at its eighty-third session (1230 August 2013), para.5. 20