11 “impact zone [of the] Tela Bay project” and that “[f]rom this map it can be concluded that the two Garífuna Communities are located in different parts of the Tela Bay.”22 27. On the other hand, in the in situ visit carried out by a Court delegation (supra para. 15) to the territories of the Garífuna Triunfo de la Cruz Community, as well as other locations among which was the “Indura Beach and Gold Resort” project, it was able to verify that in fact this tourism project was located on the other side of the Tela Bay, several kilometers away from the Triunfo de la Cruz Community and the territories in controversy in this case. Therefore, this Court will not go on record regarding the alleged violations in reference to this tourism project. V. EVIDENCE A. Documentary, testimonial, and expert evidence 28. The Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives, and the State attached to their main briefs, as well as to the representatives’ final written arguments, as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case and attachments to the State’s observations regarding the visit in situ. Similarly, the Court received the statements offered before notary public (affidavit) by four (4) alleged victims, 23 six (6) witnesses,24 and a statement offered for informative purposes.25 With regard to the evidence provided at the public hearing, the Court received the statements of the alleged victim José Ángel Castro, the witness Clara Eugenia Flores, the expert witness José Aylwin and the statement offered for informative purposes by Oscar Orlando Bonilla Landa. During the visit in situ to the areas related to the facts of the case (supra para. 15), several documents were handed over to the Court’s delegation. The recording of the development of the evidentiary diligence in situ was annexed to the case file and transmitted to the parties and the Commission. In the chapter on Facts in this judgment, the Court will refer to the evidence forwarded in the case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members v. Honduras, currently in process before it, only in what refers to the general aspects of the Garífuna people in Honduras. B. Admission of the evidence 29. The Court admits the documents presented by the parties and the Commission at the appropriate procedural time, whose admissibility was not questioned or objected. 26 Regarding some documents introduced through electronic links that may be consulted up to the date on which the judgment is issued, the Court has established that, if any of the parties or the Commission provides at least the document’s direct electronic link it cites as evidence and it is possible to access it, legal certainty or procedural equality are not affected because it is 22 Matter of the Garífuna Community of Barra Vieja. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 14, 2014, whereas clause number nine. The alleged victims are: Olivia Ramos Bernardez, Teresa Reyes Reyes, Beatriz Ramos Bernardez, and Secundino Torres Amaya. 23 The witnesses are: Alfredo López Álvarez, Francis Secundina López Martínez, Ilaria Cacho Amaya, Dionicio Álvarez García, Cesar Leonel Benedit Zúñiga, and Doris Rinabett Benedict. 24 25 The person offering a statement of an informative nature is Mr. Ismael Zepeda Ordoñez. Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, para. 74. 26