30 105. Furthermore, the Court incorporates into the records of evidence, those documents submitted by the representatives together with "the additional brief" to the brief of requests and pleadings (supra para. 8, 51 and 52) namely, copies of the case file being processed before the Ombudsman Office of Venezuela, in accordance with Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure, for considering it useful to adjudicate this case and as long as said copies have been obtained by the representatives after the presentation of the autonomous brief and refer to facts that form part of the factual framework of the instant case. 106. In the application, the Commission requested this Tribunal to incorporate to this case file “a copy of all the proceedings related to the provisional measures ordered by the InterAmerican Court in favor of the reporters, executives and other employees of the Venezuelan television station Globovisión”. The Commission did not provide any ground for such request and, moreover, upon consultation to the other parties in this regard, they present no argument in this sense. The Court has already held that the proceedings related to the processing of the provisional measures are independent from this case (supra para. 69); therefore it is not appropriate to resolve in favor of this request. Nevertheless, the Tribunal shall assess the evidence mentioned by the Commission to assert the facts of the case on two occasions,49 forwarded by the representatives within the procedure of provisional measures, considering that the Commission expressly offered this evidence in the petition and that the State knew about the videos, and had the opportunity to exercise its right to defense. 107. As to the videos submitted by the Commission, the representatives and the State at the different procedural opportunities, which have not been challenged or their authenticity questioned, this Court shall assess their content within the context of the body of evidence, taking into account the observations made by the parties. 108. The Commission tendered as evidence some transcriptions of the statements made by public officials of the State. In some cases, the Commission made reference to the direct electronic link of the transcription tendered as evidence.50 The Court considered that neither the legal certainty nor the procedural balance has been impaired in the cases in which one of the parties provides, at least, the direct electronic link to the document that such party mentions as evidence, since it can be immediately traced by the Court and the other parties.51 In this case, the Court verifies that the Commission submitted said transcriptions as exhibits to the application and that the other parties have made no objection or observation whatsoever to the content and authenticity thereof. 109. As to the videos provided by the Commission regarding the statements made by the public officials, this Court has reviewed them and notes that such videos contain images that do not correspond to the facts mentioned within the factual framework of the instant case. In such regard, the Court shall only take into account the evidence related to the speeches described in the application, including those clarifications and details brought up by the representatives regarding the excerpts identified by the Commission thereof. This Tribunal also notes that in the videos presented by the Commission regarding said 49 Hence, the Commission quoted as evidence two videos related to the incidents of July 11, 2005 and August 27, 2005 and mentioned that said evidence "was already in the power of the Tribunal". The other parties made no allegation in this regard. On both occasions, the Commission quoted the evidence incorrectly 50 51 The Commission provided the electronic links of exhibits 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 in the application. Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 26; Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra note 29, para. 17.