B. Admission of the evidence B.1. Admission of the documentary evidence 34. In this case, as in others, the Court admits those documents provided by the parties at the appropriate procedural opportunity that were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not challenged, exclusively insofar as they are pertinent and useful for the determination of the facts and the eventual legal consequences. 36 In addition, the documents requested by the Court during the public hearing and subsequently, and that were opportunely provided by the parties, 37 are incorporated into the body of evidence in application of the provisions of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. 35. The representatives asked that “the State […] be required to provide precise information on the evolution of the salary of an Assistant Commissioner [of the province of Buenos Aires …] as of 1994 […], with details of the corresponding salaries […] up to the level of […] Commissioner General.” For its part, the State argued that this request was inadmissible, because it was “a complete speculation.” The Commission did not refer to this point. The Court considers that it is not necessary to require Argentina to present the said documentation, because it is not essential, since, in the Agreement signed by the parties (supra para. 17.6) the Court is asked to establish “the compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage based on the principle of equity.” 36. Regarding newspaper articles, 38 this Court has considered that they may be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or declarations of State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case. 39 The Court decides to admit those documents that are complete or that, at least, permit their source and date of publication to be noted, and will assess them taking into account the whole body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 37. With regard to several documents indicated by means of electronic links, 40 the Court has established that, if a party provides, at least, the direct electronic link to the document the supposed impunity of the acts.” Cf. Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 20, 2012, operative paragraph 5.1. 35 Expert witness Alberto Binder provided an opinion on “the functioning of the justice system and the Police of the province of Buenos Aires; in particular, the supposed deficiencies that led to the judicial and police reforms of 1997 and 1998, and on the purpose, content and main characteristics of this reform, and the degree of compliance with it in relation to its actual functioning.” Cf. Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 20, 2012, operative paragraph 5.1. 36 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. Series C No. 260, para. 53. 37 The representatives forwarded the Final Report of the Special Investigative Commission of the Chamber of Deputies of the National Congress (merits file, folios 905 to 1096). Also, in a brief of August 30, 2013, they explained that the criminal and procedural codes applicable to the investigations conducted into the facts of the case may be found on specific web pages of the State (supra para. 13). The Court did not take into account the Commission’s brief of August 7, 2013, because it was time-barred (supra para. 12). 38 Cf. “Un Fallo Critica con Severidad Caso de la Aduana Paralela” [A judgment severely criticizes the case of the parallel customs house], La Nación, October 12, 2000, and “El Ranking de los Hechos de Corrupción” [The ranking of acts of corruption], CNA Agencia de Noticias, December 7, 2009 (file of annexes to the submission brief, folios 38 to 48). 39 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra para. 146, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 44. 40 Among others, the representatives indicated the State’s web pages where the Criminal Code of the Argentine Nation currently in force can be found (http://www.infojus.gov.ar/index.php?kk_seccion=codigos, 16