8 them into the body of evidence of the instant case, pursuant to the provisions of Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 17. The Court notes that several documents mentioned by the parties in their respective briefs have not been submitted to the Court.13 Some such documents were made accessible by the parties through provided weblinks. Other documents, issued by different public institutions of the State, were only cited, but the Court was able to locate them via the Internet. According to this Court’s case law, the parties have a duty to attach to their respective main briefs all the documentation that they wish to submit as evidence, so that the Court and the other parties can learn from those documents immediately.14 Nonetheless, the Court considers that, in the instant case, said documents were filed in a timely fashion and that while the parties had the opportunity to challenge them, they failed to do so. Therefore, said documents are admitted as evidence and hereby incorporated into the case, given that neither the legal certainty nor the procedural balance has been impaired. 18. Regarding the press documents submitted by the parties, the Court notes that some of them are dateless.15 However, as the parties have not challenged them on this ground or questioned their authenticity, they may be assessed when they refer to public and notorious facts or statements made by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case.16 19. Furthermore, the Court admits the documents submitted by the State and the representative during the public hearing, for they are considered useful to adjudicate 13 Documents mentioned by the Inter-American Commission: judgment No. 465 of March 22, 2001 issued by the CPAM of the STJ; judgment No. 01285 of August 20, 2003 issued by the CPAM of the STJ; judgment No. 01662 of October 28, 2003 issued by the CPAM of the STJ; judgment No. 00331 of April 14, 2004 issued by the CPAM of the STJ; judgment No. 01771 of October 14, 2004 issued by the CPAM of the STJ; judgment No. 1057 of June 1, 2005 issued by the CPAM of the STJ; judgment No. 3321 of November 3, 2005 issued by the Chamber for Constitutional Matters of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice; judgment No. 1048 of May 18, 2006 issued by the CPAM of the STJ; judgment No. 1764 of August 15, 2007, issued by the CPAM of the STJ;, and statements made by the President of the Republic Hugo Chávez Frías on October 26, 2003 on Government Online, Aló Presidente No. 169. Documents mentioned by the representative: newspaper article entitled “TSJ otorgó la titularidad a 164 jueces ‘bolivarianos’,” [“STJ grants tenure to 164 ‘bolivarian’ judges’”] published on December 21, 2005, in El Universal; speech of Justice José M. Delgado-Ocando, Justice of the CPAM of the STJ; during the 2001 Opening Session on January 11, 2001. 14 Cf. Case of Escué-Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 26. 15 Cf. newspaper articles entitled: “Los Polémicos Fallos,” [“Controversial Rulings”], published in El Universal (Evidence file, Book IV, Annex C, p. 1261); “Gobierno desconoce la decisión judicial de reemplazar a los médicos cubanos,” [“Government disregards court decision to replace Cuban doctors”], published in El Nacional (Evidence file, Book, IV, Annex C, p. 1242); “Rangel Avalos desacatará decisión de tribunales” [“Rangel Avalos to disobey court decision”], published in El Universal (Evidence file, Book IV, Annex C, p. 1257); “Rangel Avalos reitera desacato a decisión de Corte” [“Rangel Avalos confirms disobedience of Court order”], published in El Universal (Evidence file, Book IV, Annex C, p. 1258); “Magistrados esperan frutos del pacto entre el MVR, AD, y el MAS,” [“Magistrates expect results of MVRAD-MAS pact”], published in El Universal (Evidence file, Book IV, Annex C, p. 1275); “Inspectores no hallaron irregularidades en la Corte Primera,” [“Inspectors fail to find irregularities at the First Court”], published in El Nacional (Evidence file, Book IV, Annex C, p. 1244), and “Los cuestionamientos de José Vicente y Freddy Bernal,” [“The challenges posed by José Vicente and Freddy Bernal”], published in El Universal (Evidence file, Book IV, Annex C, p. 1251). 16 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 86; Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al., supra note 8, para. 65; Case of La Cantuta, supra note 8, para. 65, and Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 59.