-10Court may have to examine the domestic proceedings to establish their compatibility with the American Convention.12 23. The Court holds that the arguments of the State are related to alleged violations of the rights recognized in Articles 4, 5, 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. The Court will analyze, inter alia, the domestic procedural stages in order to decide on those alleged violations. This anaysis will take place in the chapter on the merits of this Judgment. 24. In view the foregoing, the Court holds that it must reject the preliminary objection raised by the State for being inappropriate. VI. EVIDENCE A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 25. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the State, the representatives and the Commission with their principal briefs and as evidence to better resolve. The Court also received the statements of the witness Pablo Rogelio Talavera Elguera and of the alleged victims Víctor Tarazona Hinostroza and Santiago Pérez Vera. It also received the expert opinions of Víctor Jesús Gonzáles Jáuregui, Víctor Manuel Cubas Villanueva and Josephine Marie Burt. Each of these statements was given before a notary public. As to the evidence given in the public hearing, the Court received the statement of Mr. Bejarano Laura. B. Admission of the evidence 26. The Court admitted the documents that were presented at the proper procedural moment by the parties and by the Commission, the admissibility of which was neither contested nor objected to.13 With regard to some documents submitted electronically that may be consulted until the delivery of the Judgment, the Court has established that, if a party or the Commission provides a direct electronic link of the document that is cited as evidence and it is possible to trace it, neither legal certainty nor procedural balance is affected because it can be immediately located by the Court, by the parties or by the Commission.14 In this case, there was neither opposition nor observations by the parties nor by the Commission regarding the admissibility of such documents. 27. The Court also deems it relevant to admit the statement of Mr. Bejarano Laura given at the public hearing and the testimony and opinions before a notary public to the extent that they deal with the purpose defined by the Acting President in the order that admitted the reception of their testimony15 and that defined the purpose of the present case. Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 222 and Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 243. 12 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140 and Case of expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, para. 113. 13 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 expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, para. 115. 14 15 The purpose of these statements is established in the Order of the President of the Court of March 26, 2014.