12 Reverón’s statements in the corresponding section of this Judgment, taking into account that the alleged victim’s statement cannot be assessed in an isolated manner, since she has a direct interest in the case.25 46. On the other hand, the Tribunal observes that several documents quoted by the representatives were not provided to the Court,26 but instead the direct electronic link to a Web page was sent. In this sense, pursuant with the jurisprudence of this Court, it is the parties’ duty to enclose to their corresponding main briefs any documentation they wish to be considered as evidence, so it may be known of by the Tribunal and the other parties immediately. Without detriment of the aforementioned, in the present case, the Court observes that the documents provided in this manner are useful and that the parties had the possibility to locate and contest them, but they did not do it. Therefore, those documents are accepted and included in the case file, since juridical safety or procedural balance was not affected.27 47. In reference to the press documents presented by the parties, they may be assessed only when they refer to public and notorious facts or statements made by State officials or when they verify aspects related to the case.28 48. Finally, the Court adds to the body of evidence, pursuant with Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure and because it considers them useful in the adjudication of the case, the following domestic regulations: Law on the Statute of Public Service of Venezuela29 and the Organic Code of Criminal Procedures.30 VI ARTICLE 25 (RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION)31 IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS)32 AND 2 (DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS)33 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 25 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192 para. 54, and Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009, Series C No. 193, para. 24. 26 These documents are: Annual report of the Inter-American Commission of the year 2002, OAS/Ser.L/V/II.117, Doc. 1 rev. 1, March 7, 2003; Annual report of the Inter-American Commission of the year 2003, OAS/Ser.L/V/II.118, Doc. 70 rev. 2, December 29, 2003; Annual report of the Inter-American Commission of the year 2004, OAS/Ser.L/V/II.122, Doc. 5 rev. 1, February 23, 2005; Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission of the year 2005, OAS/Ser.L/V/II.124, Doc. 7, February 27, 2006 ,and Annual report of the Inter-American Commission of the year 2006, OAS/Ser.L/V/II.127, Doc. 4 rev. 1, March 3, 2007. 27 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 26, Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 38, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 9, para. 108. 28 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 9, para. 146; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 9, para. 101, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 15, para. 43. 29 Cf. Law on the Statute of Public Service in Venezuela, issued by the National Assembly of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on July 9, 2002, published in the Official Gazette of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Nº 37,522 on September 6, 2002. 30 Cf. Organic Code of Criminal Procedures issued by the National Assembly on October 2, 2001, published in the Official Gazette No. 5,558 dated November 14, 2001. 31 Article 25(1) of the Convention states: