provided by the representatives and the State after submitting their pleadings and motions brief and answer brief, respectively. 29. The State requested that “any exhibit or certificate that the C[omission] or the petitioners have attached to their respective briefs, related to these proceedings, be compared with the certified records [of the criminal proceedings]” so as to “avoid taking any of the facts or actions related to the proceedings out of context.” The State indicated that “any record referring to the criminal proceedings which does not form part of said records shall be considered as a mere interpretation or personal opinion.” On this point, the Court notes that the State did not challenge the admissibility of the evidence and considers that its argument regarding the significance of the documents not included in the domestic criminal file is a matter related to the burden of proof of such documentation, a matter which should be decided in the merits stage, taking into account the State’s arguments and the remaining evidence on file. 30. The State asked the Court “to grant the appropriate value to publications and reports by individuals, based on international standards, ensuring that their content fairly reflects the scope of the matter at hand.” This Court notes that the State did not challenge the admissibility of these individual reports and shall consider these along with the rest of the body of evidence. 31. As to the documents submitted by the representatives in relation to “the ecological or environmental question,” the State requested that the Court “confine itself to the main reason for the case, which would be to corroborate that the actions of the Mexican authorities adhered to international human rights standards.” Furthermore, the State “question[ed] the consideration of evidence and elements foreign to the case” and requested that any “evidence” concerning “either the overall situation of human rights in Guerrero or the situation or activities” carried out by Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel “as ecologists or on other matters”, “be rejected outright.” The Court deems it appropriate to determine, as a prior consideration of this Judgment (infra para. 60), whether the facts contained in these documents form part of the object of this case. To that end, the Court shall take into account the State’s arguments as well as the rest of the body of evidence. 32. Also, with respect to the documents submitted by the representatives and the State after the submission of the pleadings and motions and answer briefs, respectively, the Court considers it timely to recall that Article 46 of the Rules of Procedure, governing the admission of evidence, establishes that: 1. Items of evidence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if they are offered in the application of the Commission, in the brief of pleadings and motions of the alleged victims, in the answer to the application and observations to the pleadings and motions filed by the State or, when appropriate, in the document setting out the preliminary objections and the answer thereto. […] 3. Should any of the parties allege force majeure, serious impediment, or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for producing an item of evidence, the Court may […] admit such evidence, provided that the opposing parties are guaranteed the right of defense. 33. During the course of the public hearing, the representatives submitted certain documentation in relation to the disputes in this case. 34 Given that such documentation could be pertinent and useful in deciding the facts of this case and their possible consequences, pursuant to Article 47 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court decides to admit said documentation. 34 Refers to several medical certificates mentioned in the cross-examination of expert witness Christian Tramsen, conducted by the representatives of the alleged victims, which were transmitted to the parties in the record confirming receipt of documents for the public hearing held on August 26 and 27, 2010. 16