expert opinions rendered by affidavit before a notary public and at the public hearing before the Court, as well as the evidence to facilitate adjudication requested by the President of the Court (supra paras. 14 and 15). In doing so, the Court will adhere to the principles of sound judgment, within the applicable legal framework.15 A) Documentary, testimonial, and expert evidence 32. The Court received various documents offered as evidence by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives16, together with their main briefs (supra paras. 1 and 9) and the observations of the representatives to the preliminary objection filed by the State (supra para. 11), as well as the documents presented by the State as evidence to facilitate adjudication, as requested by the President of the Court (supra paras. 15, 17 and 18). Also, the Court received affidavits rendered before a notary public from: the alleged victim and expert witness Alberto Martín Binder. As to the evidence rendered at the public hearing, the Court heard the statements of the expert witnesses Alberto Bovino and Julio B. J. Maier.17 B) Admission of the evidence B.1) Admission of the documentary evidence 33. In this case, as in others, the Court recognizes the evidentiary value of the documents submitted by the representatives and the Commission at the proper procedural stage, which have neither been contested nor challenged, and the authenticity of which has not been questioned.18 34. Likewise, with regard to certain documents identified by the representatives and the Commission by means of their electronic links, the Court has established that if a party provides at least the direct electronic link to the document cited as evidence, and it is possible to access this document, the legal certainty and the procedural balance will not be affected, because it is immediately accessible to the Court and to the other parties.19 The Court notes that upon offering as evidence several judgments issued by the domestic courts, the representatives, in their brief of pleadings and motions, mentioned an electronic link through which it is possible to access information provided by them. However, this evidence was also attached in an electronic email on December 11, 2011, within the period established for that purpose. In this case, neither the parties nor the Commission raised any objection or made any observations regarding the content and authenticity of such documents. 35. The State submitted certain documentation along with its final written arguments and communications of July 23 and 30, and August 10, 2012, in response to the President’s requests for information and evidence to facilitate adjudication (supra paras. 15, 17 and 18). The Court deems it appropriate to admit the documents submitted by 15 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al) V. Guatemala. Merits, para. 76, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 13. 16 The State offered no evidence when submitting its answer brief. 17 The purpose of each of these statements is established in the Order of the President of the Court of June 4, 2012 (supra note 7). 18 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 15. 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 Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 17. 11