VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J the crime. This evidence is not conclusive, as it cannot be ascertained from where the information contained in the immigration registry record originates, or when it was entered into the database. [33] On all of this information the applicant was born in 1977, 1979 or 1981, and he was between 16 and 20 years old when the offences were committed. However, none of the new evidence is admissible under the requirements of Rule 31 of this Court.28 The evidence is neither common cause nor incontrovertible. It is not capable of easy verification. During oral argument, counsel for the parties agreed that this Court has to rely on the record, including the High Court’s judgment, rather than on evidence that has subsequently come to light and which appears contradictory and confusing. Conclusion on age [34] It is not possible to reach a conclusion on the applicant’s age based on the above. In my opinion we are largely left with the references in the judgment of the High Court. However, the language used is not entirely clear. 28 Rule 31 states: “Documents lodged to canvas factual material (1) (2) Any party to any proceedings before the Court and an amicus properly admitted by the Court in any proceedings shall be entitled, in documents lodged with the Registrar in terms of these rules, to canvas factual material that is relevant to the determination of the issues before the Court and that does not specifically appear on the record: Provided that such facts— (a) are common cause or otherwise incontrovertible; or (b) are of an official, scientific, technical or statistical nature capable of easy verification. All other parties shall be entitled, within the time allowed by these rules for responding to such document, to admit, deny, controvert or elaborate upon such facts to the extent necessary and appropriate for a proper decision by the Court.” 15