sufficient. 33 46. In response to the representative's argument, the Court reiterates that, in principle, the State made its arguments regarding the inadmissibility of the case in a timely manner before the Commission. For its part, in analyzing the admissibility of the petition, specifically the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Commission indicated in Report No. 56/19 that “in cases involving allegations of grave human rights violations, the domestic remedies that should be taken into account are those related to the criminal investigation,” and this was the basis on which it examined the process and the outcome of the criminal actions concerning the facts of the case. 47. The Court therefore finds that the Commission did analyze matters relating to the exhaustion of domestic remedies to decide on the admissibility of the petition. It is a separate issue that the State does not agree with the Commission's reasoning, but since this constitutes a mere disagreement over criteria, it does not constitute a serious violation of the State's right to defense and is not admissible as a motion to review the Commission’s actions. Therefore, the Court dismisses this preliminary objection. V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 48. The Court received a variety of documents presented as evidence by the Commission and by the parties together with their main briefs (supra paras. 4, 7, and 8). As in other cases, documents are admitted if they were presented at the proper procedural stage (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure)34 by the parties and the Commission, if their admissibility was neither contested nor opposed, and if their authenticity was not questioned.35 49. Additionally, the Commission and the parties identified several documents using hyperlinks. As this Court has established, if a party provides at least a direct hyperlink to the document it cites as evidence and it is possible to access the document, neither legal certainty nor procedural balance is impaired, because it can be found immediately by the Court and by the other parties. 36 In this regard, it admits the documents for which a functional hyperlink is provided. 37 Cf. Case of the Saramaka Indigneous People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, par. 32, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, par. 22. 34 Documentary evidence, in general and pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, may be presented with the application brief, the pleadings and motions brief, or the answering brief, as applicable, and evidence submitted outside these procedural opportunities cannot be admitted, except in the event of the exceptions stated in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (namely, force majeure, serious impediment) or if it refers to an event which occurred after the procedural moments indicated. 35 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, par. 140, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 33. 36 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, par. 26; and Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348, par. 33. 37 This is for the following evidence: a) identified in the Report on the Merits: i) Nunca Más. Informe de la Comisión Nacional sobre la Desaparición de Personas, Buenos Aires, Eudeba, 1984, available at: http://www.desaparecidos.org/arg/conadep/nuncamas/; ii) “El Nunca Más y los crímenes de la dictadura.” Ministry of Culture, Presidency of the Argentine Nation, Edición Cultura Argentina, available at: https://librosycasas.cultura.gob.ar/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/LC_ NuncaMas_Digital1.pdf; iii) La Judicialización de la Operación Cóndor Report of the Office of the Prosecutor for Crimes against Humanity of the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Argentina, Buenos Aires, November 2015, available at: https://www.fiscales.gob.ar/wpcontent/uploads/2015/11/Informe- ProcuLesa-Op-C%C3%B3ndor-Final.pdf; iv) Office of Human Rights for the recent past, Eastern Republic of Uruguay, Disappeared detainees due to State responsibility and/or acquiescence, file corresponding to Julien Cáceres, Mario Roger, file L.D.D. No. 064, available at: https://www.gub.uy/secretariaDerechos-humanos-pasado-reciente/sites/secretariaDerechos-humanos-pasadoreciente/files/documentos/publicaciones/JULI%C3%89N%20C 33 14