B. Admission of the documentary evidence 43. In this case, as in others, the Court admits those documents forwarded by the parties at the appropriate procedural moment that were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not challenged.40 44. With regard to the newspaper articles presented by the parties and the Commission with their different briefs, this Court has considered that they may be assessed when they relate to well-known public events or declarations of State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case.41 The Court decides to admit the 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 whole body of evidence, the observations of the parties and the rules of sound judicial discretion.42 Regarding some of the 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 that it cites as evidence and it is possible to access it, neither legal certainty nor procedural equality is affected, because it can be found immediately by the Court and the other parties.43 45. The Court observes that, in a note of the Secretariat of March 21, 2012, the State was granted the opportunity to forward some annexes to its answer to the submission that were illegible or incomplete. The representatives had also asked the State to provide some of the same documentation. On March 28, 2012, the State sent some of the requested documents and asked for an extension for the others. The additional time was granted and on April 17, 2012, the State provided the remaining documents. 46. In their brief with observations on the preliminary objections, the representatives underscored that some attachments44 submitted by the State were not evidence. The Court considers that, indeed, several of the documents submitted by the State do not constitute probative elements; accordingly, they will not be assessed as such, but only as part of the State’s arguments. 47. In an Order of the President of June 5, 2012 (supra para. 11), the State was asked to present a copy of certain documentation requested by the representatives.45 The Court observes that, on June 27, 2012, the State presented only part of the requested documentation.46 48. Furthermore, in its answer, the State requested the Court: 40 Cf. Case of Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 140, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 33. 41 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 146, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 35. 42 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. para. 146, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 35. 43 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 the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No. 252, para. 36. 44 Those that referred to the actual evidence that the 12th Criminal Court of the Bogotá Circuit and the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Bogotá took into account to convict the members of the Colombian Air Force, 45 Namely: (a) The death certificate and/or record of the removal of the corpse of Rodolfo (or Rodulfo) Carrillo Mora; (b) complete and accurate information possessed by State agencies on the population that really lived in Santo Domingo on December 13, 1998; (c) complete and accurate information on the population registered as displaced from the village of Santo Domingo in relation to the events of December 13, 1998; (d) copy of the contracts signed by the Cravo Norte Association and Airscan International Inc., and certification of the contractual relationship between this company and J.O., C.D. and D.M., and (e) complete, updated and accurate information on the measures of deprivation of liberty against C.R.P., J.J.V. and H.M.H. 46 The State did not forward complete information on the population registered as displaced from the village of Santo Domingo in relation to the events of December 13, 1998, nor did it forward a copy of the contract signed by the Cravo Norte Association and Airscan International Inc., or the certification of the contractual relationship between this company and J.O., C.D. and D.M., or the death certificate and/or record of the removal of the body of Rodolfo Carrillo Mora. ‐ 16 ‐