35. Based on the above, the Court rejects the preliminary objection filed by the State and, hence, is competent to examine and rule on the alleged violations of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, as of March 15, 2002, the date that it entered into force for Peru. V EVIDENCE 36. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47, 50, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law with regard to evidence and its assessment, 39 the Court will examine and assess the documentary evidence forwarded by the parties at different procedural opportunities, and the statements, testimony and expert opinions provided by affidavit and during the public hearing. To this end it will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework. 40 A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 37. The Court has received different documents presented as evidence by the State, the representatives, and the Inter-American Commission, and attached to their main briefs. In addition, the Court has received the affidavits prepared by Santa Fe Gaitán Calderón, Silvia Osorio Rivera, Edith Laritza Osorio Gaytán and Aquiles Román Atencio. It has also received the opinions of expert witnesses Carlos Alberto Jibaja Zárate and Esteban Segundo Abad Agurto. During the public hearing, the Court received the audiovisual testimony of the witness Simeón Retuerto Roque, and the testimony of the presumed victim Porfirio Osorio Rivera, as well as the opinion of expert witness Avelino Trifón Guillén Jáuregui. B. Admission of the evidence B.1. Admission of the documentary evidence 38. In this case, as in others, the Court accepts the probative value of those documents presented by the parties and the Commission at the proper procedural opportunity that were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not challenged. 41 39. Regarding some documents indicated by electronic links, the Court has established that if a party 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 is affected because it can be located 39 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 to 76, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 10. 40 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 76, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 10. 41 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 140, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 12. 16