18 49. With regard to newspaper articles, the Court has considered that they may be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case. Therefore, it decides to admit those documents that are complete or that, at least, allow their source and date of publication to be verified, and will assess them taking into account the body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion.34 50. Regarding some documents indicated by the parties by means of electronic links, the Court has established that if a party provides, at least, the direct electronic link to the document it cites as evidence and the document can be accessed, neither legal certainty nor procedural balance is affected, because the document can be found immediately by the Court and by the other parties.35 In this case, the other parties did not oppose or make observations on the content and authenticity of such documents. 51. In addition, together with their final written arguments, the representative36 and the 37 State forwarded several documents as evidence, and provided electronic links for some of them. In this regard, the parties and the Commission were granted an opportunity to present any observations they deemed pertinent (supra para. 14). The Court incorporates the documents indicated in the footnotes as evidence based on Article 58(a) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, considering them useful for deciding the case. The respective documentation will be assessed as pertinent, taking into account the body of evidence, the rules of sound judicial discretion, and the pertinent observations of the representative and the Commission. 52. During the public hearing, expert witness María Eugenia Solís presented a written opinion, which was handed to the parties and the Commission at the hearing. The Court admits it in the terms indicated with regard to the expert opinion that she provided at the public hearing (infra para. 63). C. Evidence obtained by the Court ex officio 53. Under Article 58(a) of its Rules of Procedure, “[t]he Court may, at any stage of the proceedings: (a) [o]btain, on its own motion, any evidence it considers helpful and necessary.” The Court finds that the following documents are useful and necessary for the analysis of this case and, therefore, incorporates them, ex officio, to the body of evidence in 34 Namely: BBC News/Americas. “Murderers prey on Guatemalan women”, December 6, 2003, internet (file before the Commission, tome I, fs. 1143 and 1144); “Killing sprees terrorize Guatemalan women. Hundred slain in 2 years—only a handful arrested.” Jill Replogle, Chronicle Foreign Service, December 30, 2003 (file before the Commission, tome I, fs. 1147 to 1149); Crónicas del MP. “MP captura a implicados en crímenes contra mujeres” [Public Prosecution Service captures those implicated in crimes against women]. Evidencia, Guatemala, October 2003 (file before the Commission, tome I, fs. 1223), and Diálogo “La Red de Derivación creará un nuevo paradigma de asistencia a las víctimas” [The Referral Network will establish a new model of assistance for victims]. Evidencia. Guatemala, October 2003 (file before the Commission, tome I, fs. 1224 and 1225). 35 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 J., supra, para. 42. 36 Namely: the Committee of Experts of the Follow Up Mechanism of the Convention of Belém do Pará. Declaration on Femicide. Approved at the fourth meeting of the Committee of Experts (CEVI) held on August 15, 2008; Information on attention provided to women survivors of violence in the first quarter of 2013, and Governmental Decision 46-2012, Creation of the Presidential Commission to tackle Femicide in Guatemala (COPAF) (file of preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, f. 1702), and the link to a website: http://www.ine.gob.gt/np/snvcm/index. The Court admits the document provided by the representative in its final written arguments by means of an electronic link because, as the representatives clarified, it supports the answers to questions posed by the Court’s judges during the public hearing, and because the Court deems it useful. 37 Namely: Judicial case file; File of the Public Prosecution Service (in three different parts: “Folios 1–170; Folios 171-400, and Folios 401–476”); Comparison of affidavits, and indication of an electronic link: Affidávits, http://www.ine.gob.gt/np/snvcm/index (infra para. 276). Regarding the case files, these had already been provided as evidence; consequently, the Court only admits those pages that were presented for the first time on this occasion.