26 . 90. In application of that stated in Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, as was decided by the President (supra para. 14), the Tribunal includes in the body of evidence of the present case the statement of Mr. Ángel Palacios Lascorz, the expert opinion of Mrs. María Alejandra Díaz Marín, and the expert opinion of Mr. Alberto Arteaga, all offered in the Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, taking into account the corresponding observations presented by the parties. 91. Additionally, the Court will include in the evidence file of this case the documents presented by the witness and alleged victim Carlos Colmenares during the public hearing; 54 by the State55 and by the representatives,56 in the strict measure that they adjust to the object of the present case, in the mentioned terms (supra para. 53 through 63). 92. The Commission requested in its application that this Tribunal include in the dossier of the present case “a copy of all the actions related to the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court in favor of Luisiana Ríos et al. (RCTV)”. The Commission did not justify its request and the State objected it. Additionally, it was stated that the actions related with the on-going proceedings regarding provisional measures are independent to this proceeding, and therefore it is not admissible to issue a favorable decision in this request. However, the Court will assess the statements offered by Mrs. Luisiana Ríos and Mr. Carlos Colmenares during a hearing held within the proceedings for the provisional measures (supra para. 21), offered by the representatives to substantiate facts of the case, considering that on both occasions the State had the opportunity to exercise its right to a defense. 93. With regard to the videos presented by the Commission, the representatives and the State at the different procedural opportunities, which have not been objected and whose authenticity has not been questioned, this Court will assess its content within the context of the body of evidence, taking into account the observations presented by the parties, and applying the rules of competent analysis. 94. The Commission offered as evidence transcriptions of rulings of high State authorities. In some cases, the Commission referred to the direct electronic link of the transcription cited as evidence.57 The Court has established that if a party provides at least the direct electronic link of the document cited as evidence and it is possible to access it, the legal safety or procedural balance is not affected because it can be located immediately by the Tribunal and by the other parties. 58. In this case, the Court verifies that the Commission presented the mentioned transcriptions as appendixes to its application and there was no objection or observations from the other parties regarding their content and authenticity. 54 He handed over a medical report of June 3, 2008 and a document that proves he works at Nueva Televisión del Sur. 55 It sent a book named “Mi Testimonio ante la Historia” published by Mr. Pedro Carmona Estanga 56 They sent a transcript of the demand against Mr. Andrés Izarra. Similarly, they sent a newspaper article named “Colegio Nacional de Periodistas exige investigar agresiones” published in El Universal.com on July 29, 2008, another newspaper article, with the title “SNTP denuncia aumento de atropello a la libertad” published in the newspaper El Universal of August 2, 2008 and a copy of the editorial column of Mrs. Patricia Poleo “Factores de Poder” dated April 16, 2007, April 17, 2002, April 18, 2002, April 22, 2002, April 23, 2002, and April 24, 2002. 57 The Commission provided the electronic links for the facts of November 9, 2003, January 12, 2004, and May 9, 2004, and also stated that “the content of [the] statements is public and can be found on several official government webpages, for example on http://www.gobiernoenlinea.ve/misc-view/ver_alo.pag.” 58 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 Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) V. Venezuela, supra note 31, para. 17.