20. As to the newspaper articles submitted, this Court has considered that these may be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or statements by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case. 29 Therefore, the Court decides to admit those newspaper articles that are complete, or at least those whose source and publication date can be verified, and shall assess them according to the body of evidence, the observations of the parties and the rules of sound judgment. 21. As to some of the documents referred to by the parties by means of their electronic links, the Court has established that if a party provides at least the direct electronic link to the document cited as evidence, and it is possible to access this document, the legal certainty and the procedural balance will not be affected, because its location is immediately available to the Court and to the other parties30. In this case, no opposition or observations were expressed by the other parties regarding the content and authenticity of the documents. 22. Furthermore, together with the final written arguments, the representatives and the State forwarded various documents as evidence, which were requested by the Court based on the terms stipulated in Article 58.b of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and the parties had the opportunity to present any observations deemed pertinent. The Court admits said documents as evidence. These will be assessed taking into consideration the body of evidence, the observations of the parties and the rules of sound judgment. 23. Following the public hearing, written versions of the expert opinions rendered by Juan Carlos Marín, Robert Warren Wintemute and Allison Jernow at the public hearing in this case were forwarded. These statements were also conveyed to the other parties. The Court admits these documents insofar as they refer to the purpose duly specified by the President of the Court for such expert opinions (supra para. 18), considering these are useful for the present case and that there were no objections, nor was their authenticity or veracity challenged. C. Admission of testimonial and expert evidence 24. As to the statements rendered before a notary public and those made at the public hearing, the Court admits these, considering they are relevant inasmuch as they relate to the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order requiring them (supra paras. 17 and 18). These statements shall be assessed in the appropriate chapter, together with the entire body of evidence, taking into account the observations made by the parties31. 25. According to the case-law of this Court, the statements made by the alleged victims cannot be assessed separately but as part of the entire body of evidence in the proceedings, since they are useful insofar as they may provide more information on the alleged violations and their consequences32. Based on the foregoing, the Court admits the statement made by 29 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 28, para. 146 and Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra note 28, para. 14. 30 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C Nº. 165, para. 26; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 12, para. 86; and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 54. 31 Cf. Case Loayza Tamayo vs. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43 and Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 238, para. 25. 12