C) Expert witness offered by the Inter-American Commission 3) Leandro Despouy, who testified, with regard to the facts of this case, on the guarantees of due process of law that must be observed in impeachment proceedings, and the implications of the policy review in relation to judicial proceedings, in particular, determination of the grounds for the removal of judges. D) Expert witness offered by the State 4) Juan Montaña Pinto, who testified on: (i) democratic constitutionalism in Ecuador from the Montecristi Constitution to the Transition Regime; (ii) the historical constitutional context; (iii) the political and juridical institutions prior to Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution; (iv) the constituent procedure in Ecuador as regards the acceptance of democracy and the legal mechanisms of the Montecristi Constituent Assembly in Ecuador; (v) the referendum that approved the Constitution, and (vi) the transition regime. B. Admission of the evidence 31. In this case, as in others, the Court admits those documents forwarded by the parties on the appropriate procedural occasion that were not contested or challenged, and the authenticity of which was not questioned, exclusively insofar as they are pertinent and useful for the determination of the facts and the eventual legal consequences.17 32. In addition, the Court finds that the statements of the presumed victims and the witnesses, and the expert opinions provided by affidavit and during the public hearing are pertinent only to the extent that they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order requiring them (supra paras. 29 and 30). They will be assessed in conjunction with the other elements of the body of evidence. Furthermore, in accordance with this Court’s case law, the statements made by the presumed victims cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather in the context of all the evidence in the proceedings, because they are useful insofar as they can provide further information on the presumed violations and their consequences.18 33. Regarding newspaper articles, 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. 19 The Court decides to admit those documents that are complete or that, at least, allow their source and date of publication to be appreciated, and will assess them taking into account the body of evidence, the observations of the parties and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 34. Also, regarding some documents indicated by the representatives 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 17 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013, para. 53. 18 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 22, para. 43, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, para. 54. 19 para. 33. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 146, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, 13