- 14 - 38. In this case, as in others, this Court admits those documents presented by the parties and the Commission at the appropriate opportunity that were not challenged or contested, and the authenticity of which was not questioned.31 The documents requested by the Court or its President and provided by the parties after the public hearing were incorporated into the body of evidence in application of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. 39. Regarding the newspaper articles presented by the parties and the Commission, this Court has considered that they may be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case.32 The Court decides to admit those documents that are complete or that, at least, allow their source and date of publication to be verified. 40. Also, with regard to some documents indicated by the parties and the Commission by means of electronic links, this Court has established that, if a party provides at least the direct electronic link to the document that it cites as evidence and it is possible to Access it, neither legal certainty nor procedural equality is affected, because it can be located immediately by the Court and by the other parties.33 In this case, neither the other parties nor the Commission opposed or commented on the content and authenticity of such documents. 41. Regarding the procedural occasion to present documentary evidence, according to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, in general, it must be presented with the briefs submitting the case, with motions and arguments, or answering the submission of the case, as appropriate. 42. The State presented certain documentation with its final written arguments.34 The parties and the Commission were able to present their observations on this information and documentation. The representative asked that the new diplomatic assurances presented by Peru with its final written arguments be “rejected” because they were time-barred. According to the representative, “any guarantee not to impose the death penalty or that there is no risk of being subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment must be presented before the domestic courts and, in this case, before Peru’s Supreme Court of Justice and Constitutional Court.” The Court considers that these objections of the representative refer to matters relating to the merits of this dispute; hence, it is not appropriate to decide them when examining the admissibility of the evidence. 43. In addition, the Commission “called the Court’s attention to the lack of clarity of the nature 31 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 140, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 102. 32 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 146, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 104. 33 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 Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 103. 34 The State presented: (Annex 1) information from the Public Prosecution Service on preliminary investigations into money-laundering against Wong Ho Wing, his brother and sister-in-law; (Annex 2) information on the actions taken by the Ombudsman in response to the requests to intervene in favor of WHW; (Annex 3) information on the criminal legislation and the criminal procedural system in the People’s Republic of China and the guarantees of due process if Wong Ho Wing were to be extradited; (Annex 4) the second instance judgment in the case of Pan Ziniu; (Annex 5) information from the National Council of the Judicature on the control of the judges who issued the first advisory decision; (Annex 6) video of the hearing before the Constitutional Court; (Annex 7) the additional diplomatic assurances offered by the People’s Republic of China to the Peruvian State and presented during the hearing before the InterAmerican Court; (Annex 8) the documentation on the request for information of the defense of WHW in the domestic sphere; (Annex 9) the compelte file of the extradition proceedings against Wong Ho Wing, and (Annex 10) the order of December 21, 2009, of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court.