and will assess them taking into account the whole body of evidence, the observations of the State, and the rules of sound judicial discretion (supra para. 25 and infra para. 191). 35. Regarding newspaper articles, the Court has considered that these can be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case.24 The Court noted that the date of publication is illegible in some of these documents. Consequently, the Court decides to admit the documents that are complete or that, at least, permit determination of the source and date of publication, and will assess them taking into account the whole body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion.25 36. Regarding some documents indicated by electronic links, the Court has established that if one of the parties provides, at least, the direct electronic link to the document that it cites as evidence and it can be accessed, neither legal certainty nor procedural balance are affected, because it can be found immediately by the Court and by the other parties.26 In this case, neither the parties nor the Commission opposed or made observations on the content and authenticity of the said documents. 37. Regarding articles or texts indicating events relating to this case, the Court has considered that they are documents that contain declarations or claims of their authors for public dissemination. Thus, the assessment of their content is not subject to the formalities required for testimonial evidence. Nevertheless, their probative value will depend on whether they corroborate or refer to aspects related to this specific case.27 38. During the public hearing (supra para. 13), the State presented copies of several documents, a copy of which was given to the representatives and to the Commission. In addition, with its final written arguments the State presented a video as well as copy of a table and photographs. The representatives and the Commission had the opportunity to submit their observations in this regard. Considering them useful for deciding this case and under Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court admits this evidence provided by the State, insofar as it refers to facts that occurred after the presentation of the brief answering the presentation of the case and with observations on the representatives’ pleadings and motions brief, and will consider the information indicated therein, insofar as it is pertinent, taking into account the whole body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 39. Regarding the documents on costs and expenses forwarded by the representatives with their final written arguments, the Court will only consider those that refer to new costs and expenses arising from the proceedings before this Court; in other words, those incurred after the submission of the pleadings and motions brief. B.2) Admission of statements and expert opinions 40. The Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements and expert opinions provided at the public hearing and by affidavit, to the extent that they are in keeping with the purpose defined 24 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 146, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 62. 25 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 77, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 62. 26 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 26, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 63. 27 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, para. 72, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 55. 14