Tulio Álvarez Bobadilla; and expert witnesses Carlos Castresana Fernández, Bernardo R. Morales Figueroa, Silvio René Gramajo Valdés, Alejandro Valencia Villa and Carlos Martin Beristain. Regarding the evidence provided at the public hearing, the Court heard the testimony of the presumed victims Wendy Santizo Méndez and Efraín García; the witness Manuel Giovanni Vásquez Vicent; and the expert witness Katharine Temple Doyle. 35 B) Admission of the evidence B.1) Admission of the documentary evidence 37. In this case, as in others, the Court grants probative value to those documents forwarded by the parties and the Commission at the appropriate procedural opportunity, that were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not questioned.36 In addition, the helpful documents and information requested by the Court (supra paras. 10, 11 and 16), whose admissibility was not contested or opposed, are incorporated into the body of evidence, in application of the provisions of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. 38. Regarding the newspaper articles submitted by the parties and the Commission together with their respective briefs, this Court has considered that they can be assessed provided that they refer to well-known public facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate certain aspects of the case. 37 The Court 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 whole body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 39. Similarly, with regard to some documents indicated by the parties and the Commission by means of 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 it, legal certainty and procedural equality are not affected because both the Court and the other parties can locate it immediately.38 In this case, neither the other parties nor the Commission contested or made observations on the content and authenticity of such documents. 40. With regard to the procedural moment to present documentary evidence, under Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, it must be offered, generally, together with the briefs submitting the case, the pleadings and motions brief, or the answering brief, as applicable. The Court recalls that evidence furnished outside the appropriate procedural moments is inadmissible, unless it falls within the exceptions established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, namely, force majeure, serious impediment, or if it refers to an event which occurred after the said procedural moments. 41. In this regard, the Court observes that the State forwarded, together with its final written arguments, two documents relating to mental health care in Guatemala, without offering any justification for its submission after its answering brief. The Court finds that the 35 The purpose of all these statements is established in the Order of the President of the Court of March 20 2012, supra. 36 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, supra note 18, para. 140, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places, supra, para. 33. 37 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 146, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places, supra, para. 35. 38 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, supra, para. 36. - 17 -