21 statements rendered by affidavit of the expert witnesses Alejandro Rodríguez Barillas 38 and Ramón Cadena Rámila, 39 and the alleged victim Miguel Sic Osorio, 40 all proposed by the representatives. As for the evidence given at the public hearing, the Court heard the statements of the alleged victims Napoleón García de Paz and Juana García Depaz, as well as the expert witness Luis Raúl Francisco Salvadó Cardoza, all proposed by the representatives, as well as the expert testimony of Cristián Alejandro Correa Montt, proposed by the Commission. 41 Furthermore, in a brief dated June 25, 2015, the Court received from the representatives, 62 attached documents consisting of birth, marriage and death certificates, issued by the National Registry of Persons, belonging to alleged victims from the village of Chichupac and other communities of the municipality of Rabinal, Department of Baja Verapaz. Also in a brief dated April 19, 2016, the representatives forwarded birth, marriage and death certificates issued by the National Registry of Persons of the Republic of Guatemala, as well as 26 notarial affidavits of alleged victims from the village Chichupac and neighboring communities of the municipality of Rabinal who allegedly suffered persecution, forced displacement and were uprooted from their ancestral communities. Finally, on May 30, 2016, the Court received from the representatives an annex entitled “Individualized and Displaced Persons,” as well as a “General list of certificates” and “General list of victims” on June 2, 2016. B. Admission of the evidence B.1. Admission of the documentary evidence 67. The Court admits the documents submitted at the proper procedural opportunity by the parties and the Commission, the admissibility of which was not challenged or disputed, 42 as well as documents obtained and included ex officio by the Court. 43 With respect to some documents submitted by the parties and the Commission by means of electronic links, this Court has established that if a party provides at least the direct electronic link to the document it cites as evidence, and it is possible to access it, neither legal certainty nor procedural balance is affected, because it can be immediately located by the Court and by the other parties. 44 68. With regard to the procedural opportunity for the presentation of documentary evidence, in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, this must be submitted, in general, together with the briefs submitting the case, of pleadings and motions, or the answering brief, Statement of Alejandro Rodríguez Barillas rendered by affidavit (evidence file, folios 11504 to 11591). Statement of Ramón Cadena Rámila rendered by affidavit (evidence file, folios 11600 to 11654). 40 Statement of Miguel Sic Osorio rendered by affidavit (evidence file, folios 11592 to 11599). 41 In a brief of April 4, 2016 the Commission withdrew the expert opinion of Antonio Delgado. In a communication dated April 11, 2016, the State communicated its decision to withdraw the presentation, by affidavit and during the hearing, of the three experts and two witnesses summoned in the Order of March 28, 2016. 42 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 140, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, para. 44. 43 The documents obtained ex officio by the Court as helpful evidence are the following: Guide number 10346061, of El Correo, March 20, 2015 (evidence file, folio 11734); Official letter dated March 19, 2015 signed by Jose Luis Linares Gutiérrez, Assistant Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service (evidence file, folios 11735 to 11745); Description of photographic album of the Evidence Collection Unit, Criminal Investigations Directorate of the Public Prosecutor's Office. Report No. ECA248-999-2015-118 Reference No. MP248-2006-441 (evidence file, folio 11746); Photographs No. 1 and No. 2, reference MP 248-2006-441 (evidence file, folio 11747); Photographs No. 3 and No. 4, reference MP248-2006441 (evidence file, folio 11748); Photographs No. 5 and No. 6, Ref. MP248-2006-441 (evidence file, folio 11749); Photographs No. 7 and No. 8, reference MP248-2006-441 (evidence file, folio 11750); Photographs No. 9 and No. 10, reference MP248-2006-441 (evidence file, folio 11751); Photographs No. 11 and No. 12, reference MP248-2006-441 (evidence file, folio 11752); Information of the Sub-directorate of Migratory Control, of March 26, 2015 (evidence file, folios 11753 to 11756); Urgent request for preliminary evidence in File MP248-2006-441, of July 16, 2013 (evidence file, folios 11757 to 11760); Expert opinion MP248-441-2006, hamlet of Guachipilín, of January 31, 2008, file No. MP2482006-441 (evidence file, folios 11761 to 11776 bis 14); Annex MP247-2003-1142 Execution (evidence file, folios 11777 to 11903), and Annex response to the communication of May 12, 2016, and Annex MP248/2010/263 Elías Milián González, Part of File No. 248-2006-441 of the Public Prosecution Service (evidence file, folios 11904 to 11907). 44 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 Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, para. 45. 38 39