of the remedies that had not been exhausted and failed to prove that those that were available were adequate, appropriate and effective. Based on the foregoing, the Court rejects the preliminary objection filed by the State. V EVIDENCE A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 29. The Court has received various documents submitted as evidence by the Commission and the parties attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 4, 7 and 8). The has also received from the State documents requested as helpful evidence pursuant to Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure (supra para. 11). In addition, the Court has received the affidavits of presumed victims Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal and Pablo Andrés Velásquez Paiz, witness Andrea Cristina Utrera Martínez, and expert witnesses Karen Musalo and Alberto Bovino, all offered by the representatives.15 It has received the opinions of expert witnesses Paloma Soria Montañez and Christine Mary Chinkin offered by the Commission. It has also received the statement of the witness offered by the State, Víctor Manuel Boror de la Rosa. Regarding the evidence provided during the public hearing, the Court heard the statement of presumed victim Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán and the opinion of expert witness Claudia González Orellana,16 both offered by the representatives. Lastly, the Court received various documents submitted with the State’s final written arguments. B. Admission of the evidence B.1. Admission of the documentary evidence 30. The Court admits the documents presented by the parties and the Commission at the appropriate procedural opportunity that were not contested or challenged,17 and also the documents obtained and incorporated, ex officio, by the Court.18 Regarding some documents indicated by the parties and the Commission by means of 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 is possible to access this, neither legal certainty nor procedural balance is affected because it can be located immediately by the Court and the other parties. 19 In this case, neither the other parties nor the Commission contested or commented on the content and authenticity of such documents. In a communication of March 30, 2015, the representatives withdrew the offer of the expert opinions of Otto Dany León Oliva and Daniela Galindez Arias. 16 On April 21, 2015, expert witness Claudia González Orellana presented in writing the expert opinion she had provided before this Court during the public hearing that day. The Commission and the State had the opportunity to comment on this brief. 17 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2015. Series C No. 300, para. 12. 18 In this case, the Court considered the following documents, on its own motion: the Guatemalan Ombudsman, Compendium “Muertes Violentas de Mujeres, 2003 a 2005”; National Report to the Working Group of the Universal Periodic Review of the United Nations Human Rights Council, dated August 7, 2012; bill advocating the approval of the Law on the immediate search for missing women. Available at: http://www.congreso.gob.gt/manager/images/4097B3FD-E522-05473042-D05791A99602.pdf, and Report No. 03-2014, Bill 4588, Law on the immediate search for missing women, submitted to the Legislative Director of the Congress of the Republic in a note of March 25, 2014, by the Congressional Committee on Legislation and Constitutional Matters. Available at: http://www.congreso.gob.gt/manager/images/91E9DEF7-5D94-714629A0-8AB105E3FC92.PDF 19 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 26, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 33. 15 12