18 12). The Court also received the expert opinion of Mr. Miguel David Lovatón Palacios, 49 brought by the Commission. Additional evidence was delivered in the public hearing, when the Court heard the expert opinions of Marcelo Solimine, 50 offered by the Inter-American Defenders, and Armando Bonadeo51, offered by the State. B. Admission of evidence 60. In the instant case, as in other cases, the Court admits documents submitted by the parties and the Commission within established procedural time-limits (supra par. 1, 6, 8 and 12), so long as they have been neither contested nor opposed and their authenticity has not been challenged,52 to the extent that they are pertinent and useful for determining the facts and possible legal consequences.53 61. The State submitted a press release54 that the Court finds relevant as it relates publicly known, commonly held facts, it communicates declarations by government officials, and it corroborates certain matters associated with the case, and the Court will therefore admit it in its entirety.55 62. Similarly, with regard to certain documents accessible via electronic links provided by the parties and the Commission, the Court has established that, if a party gives at least the direct electronic link to a document cited as evidence, and it will remain available until the judgment is issued, legal certainty and procedural equality will not be impaired, because it can be located immediately by the Court and the other parties. 56 In this case, the content and authenticity of these documents was neither contested nor opposed by the other parties or the Commission. 49 Statement by expert witness Miguel Lovatón on international standards for guarantees of due process and the right to personal liberty in military judicial proceedings against active-duty military personnel charged with crimes committed in the line of duty. 50 Statement by expert witness Marcelo Solimine on standards regarding jurisdiction to try military personnel for crimes stipulated in the Argentine Criminal Code, right to professionally qualified defense, use of solitary confinement, prohibition on self-incrimination, pretrial detention and incarceration, and whether Argentine legislation on time limits on pretrial detention and other proceedings are compatible with the inter-American system. 51 Statement by expert witness Armando Bonadeo on: (1) the jurisdiction and composition of military courts at the time the instant case occurred, based on Law 14.029, the Code of Military Justice; (2) article 455bis of Law 14.029, the Code of Military Justice; (3) the conditions for holding pretrial detention in military justice based on Law 14.029, the Code of Military Justice, the internal system for personnel prosecuted under the Argentine Air Force Appendix I, Order 353/82 and Notification No. 6392, the persons governed by the Law for Military Personnel, its amendments and implementing regulations - Law No. 19.101-LA1 and implementing regulations for the Air Force under Law No. 19.101-LA1; (4) the reform of article 445bis of Law 14.029 based on Law 26.394; (5) penal provisions, inherently military crimes, misdemeanors and precautionary tools in the framework of Law 26.394, and (6) the jurisdiction and composition of military courts under Law 26.394. 52 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, par. 140, and Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, par. 34. 53 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, par. 140, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Indigenous Mapuche People) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, par. 54. 54 Cfr. Press release printed in the “La Prensa” newspaper on June 23, 1983, entitled “El Sistema” (evidence file, folio 14941 to 14943). 55 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, par. 146, and Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, par. 35. 56 Cfr. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, par. 26, and Case of Human Rights Defender v. Guatemala, par. 56.