VII. EVIDENCE 43. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its consistent case law concerning evidence and its assessment,35 the Court examines and assesses the documentary probative elements forwarded by the parties at the appropriate procedural moments, the statements and testimony provided by affidavit and during the public hearing, as well as the helpful evidence requested by the Court. To this end, it abides by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework, taking into account the whole body of evidence and the arguments submitted in the case. 36 A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 44. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 5 to 7, 11 and 12). In addition, the Court received the affidavits prepared by 14 presumed victims and eight expert witnesses.37 Regarding the evidence provided during the public hearing, the Court received the statement of two presumed victims, three expert witnesses, one deponent for information purposes, and one witness.38 The purpose of their statements was established in the abovementioned Order of the President of the Court of December 19, 2012 (supra para. 9). B. Admission of the documentary evidence 45. In the instant case, the Court admits those document forwarded by the parties on the appropriate procedural occasion (supra paras. 5 to 7) that were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not challenged.39 46. Regarding the newspaper articles submitted by the parties and the Commission together with their different briefs, the Court has considered that they may be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case. Thus, it decides to admit those documents that are complete or that, at least, allow their source and date of publication to be discerned, and will assess them taking into account the body of evidence, the observations of the parties and the rules of sound judicial discretion.40 Also, regarding some 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 cited as evidence and it is possible to access it, neither legal certainty nor procedural balance is affected, because it can be located immediately by the Court and by the 35 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 51, and Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile, Preliminary objection, merits and reparations, Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 267, para. 45. 36 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, para. 76, and Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile, para. 46. 37 Namely: 1) Jerónimo Pérez Argumedo; 2) Marco Fidel Velázquez Ulloa; 3) Alicia Mosquera Hurtado; 4) Jhon Jairo Mena Palacios; 5) Ángel Nelis Palacio Quinto; 6) Lucelis Bautista Pérez; 7) Eliodo Sanchez Mosquera; 8) Ernestina Valencia Teheran; 9) Elvia Hinestroza Roa; 10) Etilbia del Carmen Paez Sierra; 11) Mirna Luz Cuadrado; 12) Francisco Frenio Fernandez Padilla; 13) Leopoldina Ulloa, and 14) Henry Angulo Martínez, and by the expert witnesses: 1) Elizabeth Salmón; 2) Sebastián Albuja; 3) Albert Galinsoga; 4) Hernando Gómez; 5) Gloria Amparo Sánchez; 6) Gimena Sánchez-Garzoli; 7) Juan Pablo Franco and 8) María Paulina Leguizamón Zarate. 38 That is, the statement of two presumed victims, Bernardo Vivas Mosquera and Sofía Roa Ramírez; three expert witnesses, Javier Ciurlizza, Jesús Alfonso Flórez López and Luis Emilio Cardozo Santamaría, and of the deponent for information purposes, Miguel Samper Strouss, and the witness Germán David Castro Díaz, both proposed by the State. 39 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile, para. 47. 40 48. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 146, and Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile, para. 16