- 11 remedies, the State has the burden of specifying, at the proper opportunity, the domestic remedies that remain to be exhausted, and demonstrating that those remedies were available and adequate, appropriate and effective (supra paras. 20 and 21). The Court notes that, in this case, the State did not comply with this burden of proof. 29. Based on the above considerations, the Court rejects the preliminary objection filed by the State. V EVIDENCE A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 30. The Court has received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Commission and the parties attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 1, 6 and 7). Similarly, the Court has received from the parties documents requested by the Court’s judges as helpful evidence under Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. The Court has also received the affidavits made by presumed victims Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha, Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza and Ramón Enrique Barrios Maldonado, and witnesses Carmen Haydee López Flores, José Ernesto López Flores, Daniel Antonio López Flores and Lidia Blasina Galindo Martínez. In addition, it has received the expert opinions of Leandro Despouy, María Sol Yáñez de la Cruz, Hina Jilani,30 Frank La Rue, Julio Escoto, Joaquín Mejía Rivera and Martín Federico Böhmer.31 With regard to the evidence provided at the public hearing, the Court received the statements of the presumed victim Adán Guillermo López Lone, and the expert witnesses Perfecto Andrés Ibáñez, Leandro Despouy and Antonio Maldonado Paredes. B. Admission of the evidence B.1) Admission of the documentary evidence 31. In this case, as in others, the Court admits those documents presented by the parties and the Commission at the appropriate moment or requested as useful evidence by the Court or its President, the admissibility of which was neither contested nor opposed.32 32. As regards the newspaper articles presented by the parties with their briefs, the Court has considered that these may be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or statements made by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case.33 The Court decides to admit those documents that are complete or in which it is possible to observe, at least, their source and date of publication. 33. Moreover, regarding some documents indicated by one of the parties by means of an electronic link, the Court has established that if the party provides, at least, the direct electronic link to the document that it cites as evidence and it is possible to access it, neither legal certainty nor 30 Jilani. 31 On January 19, 2015, the petitioners forwarded the Spanish translation of the affidavit made by expert witness Hina The purposes of these statements was established in the order of the President of December 10, 2014 (supra nota 2). 32 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 140, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2015. Series C No. 300, para. 12. 33 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 146, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 12.