answer to this report into the body of evidence is appropriate, and will do this in application of Article 58(a) of its Rules of Procedure.60 66. Regarding the request to incorporate 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 held from August 12 to 30, 2013 (supra para. 19), the Court has verified that these are observations adopted following the presentation of the motions and arguments briefs by the common interveners of the representatives. Therefore this document complied with the formal requirements for its admissibility as evidence concerning a supervening fact, in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, and it will be incorporated into the body of evidence for assessment in keeping with the rules of sound judicial discretion and taking into consideration the observations made by Chile.61 It should be added that, although the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination asked the State to “present information on the follow up to the recommendations” made in the said concluding observations, the latter, as their name indicates, are not of a preliminary nature, but make a conclusive analysis of the combined nineteenth to twenty-first periodic reports that Chile presented to this Committee. g) Briefs presented directly by representative Ylenia Hartog 67. With regard to the briefs presented to the Court directly by representative Ylenia Hartog on May 29 and July 2, 2013, and the attachments to the former (supra footnotes 18 and 24), the Court reiterates that it is for CEJIL and the FIDH, the two common interveners authorized to intervene in this case, to receive and channel the motions, arguments and evidence that the other representatives wish to forward to the Court. Consequently, since they were not presented through the common interveners and had not been requested as helpful evidence by the Court or its President, the Court will not consider these briefs and attachments in its decision. h) Documents obtained ex officio by the Court 68. Under Article 58(a) of the Rules of Procedure, “[t]he Court may, at any stage of the proceedings: (a) obtain, on its own motion, any evidence it considers helpful and necessary.” The Court considers that the following documents are helpful and necessary for the analysis of this case, and therefore incorporates them ex officio into the body of evidence of this case in application of the said regulatory provision: (a) “Síntesis de resultados del XVII Censo de Población y VI de Vivienda��� [Summary of the results of the XVII Population Census and VI Housing Census], carried out in Chile in 2002;62 (b) Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations, by José R. Martínez Cobo, Special Rapporteur of the SubCommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Third Part, Conclusions, proposals and recommendations;63 (c) report presented by the Government of Chile to the Human Rights Committee in 2008 concerning the observations made on Law No. 60 UN Doc. A/HRC/25/59/Add.3, 11 March 2014, Human Rights Council, Comments of the State of Chile on the Report of the Special Rapporteur for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Ben Emmerson. Addendum, Mission to Chile. 61 Cf. Case of "Five Pensioners" v. Peru, para. 84, and Case of the Afro-descendant Communities Displaced from the Río Cacarica Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia, para. 49. 62 Available at the website of the National Institute of Statistics (INE), XVII National Population and Housing Census carried out in April 2002, “Síntesis de Resultados,” Santiago of Chile, March 2003, p. 23, at the following link: http://www.ine.cl/cd2002/sintesiscensal.pdf. 63 José R. Martínez Cobo, Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations, Third Part, Conclusions, proposals and recommendations (UN Doc. E/CN.4.Sub.2/1983/21/Add.8). 22