49. In the case of 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 this, neither legal certainty or procedural balance are impaired, because the Court and the other parties can locate it immediately. 36 In this case, the other parties did not oppose or submit observations on the content and authenticity of such documents. 50. Furthermore, with their final written arguments the representatives and the State forwarded various documents as evidence that had been requested by the Court based on the provisions of Article 58(b) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure and the parties were granted an opportunity to present any observations they deemed pertinent. The Court incorporates these documents as evidence, and they will be assessed as pertinent, taking into account the whole body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 51. Regarding the representatives’ communication of May 30, 2013, referring to a communication of the Secretariat of May 21, 2013, and, in particular, to the new information presented by the State (supra para. 15), the Court admits it insofar as it refers to the determination of the facts that are the purpose of the case or to the assessment of specific evidence concerning the facts. C. Admission of the statements of the presumed victims, and the testimonial and expert evidence 52. In relation to the affidavits and the statements presented during the public hearing, the Court admits them and considers them pertinent insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order requiring them (supra para. 9). These statements will be assessed in the corresponding chapter, together with the other elements of the body of evidence and taking into account the observations of the parties. 37 53. According to the Court’s case law, the statements of the presumed victims cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather must be evaluated together with all the evidence in the proceedings, because they are useful to the extent that they may provide further information on the alleged violations and their consequences. 38 54. Regarding the affidavit prepared by the witness José Antonio Ricardi Romero, presented after the public hearing had been held, this was forwarded to the representatives and the Commission, so that the former could present any observations they deemed pertinent with their final written arguments. The Court admits this testimony insofar as it refers to the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order requiring it (supra para. 9), because the Court considers it useful for this case and it was not contested, nor was its authenticity or truth questioned. dated December 10, 2004, published in “Liberación,” entitled: “Entregan los nombres de mil 900 torturadores y cómplices” [Names of 1,900 torturer and accomplices handed over] (file before the Commission, tome I, f. 520). 36 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 26, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 43. 37 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 54. 38 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo, v. Peru. Merits, supra, para. 43, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 37. 17