V EVIDENCE 62. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47 and 50 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law regarding evidence and its assessment,61 the Court will consider and assess the documentary evidence forwarded by the parties at different procedural stages, the statements, testimonies and expert opinions provided through affidavits and in the public hearing before the Court, as well as the evidence requested by the Court (supra para. 11) to facilitate adjudication. In doing so, the Court will adhere to the principles of sound judgment, within the relevant regulatory framework.62 A) Documentary, testimonial and expert witness evidence 63. The Court received several documents submitted as evidence by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State, attached to their main briefs. Similarly, the Court received the affidavits of: the alleged victim Danilo Pedro Furlan; the witnesses María Teresa Grossi and Violeta Florinda Jano, and expert witnesses Estela del Carmen Rodríguez and Hernán Gullco. Regarding the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Court heard the testimony of the alleged victim Claudio Furlan and the expert witnesses Laura Beatriz Subies, Gustavo Daniel Moreno and Alejandro Morlachetti.63 B) Admission of evidence B.1) Admission of documentary evidence 64. In this case, as in others, the Court recognizes the evidentiary value of the documents submitted by the parties and the Commission at the appropriate procedural stage, which have neither been contested nor challenged, and the authenticity of which has not been questioned.64 The documents requested by the Court as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. 11) are included in the body of evidence, pursuant to the provisions of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. 65. The Court decides to admit those documents that are complete, or at least those whose source and publication date can be verified, and will assess them taking into account the entire body of evidence, the State’s arguments and the rules of sound judgment. 65 66. Likewise, with regard to certain documents referred to by the parties by means of their 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 document, the legal certainty and the procedural balance will not be affected, because its location is 61 Cf. Case of the White Van (Paniagua Morales et. al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 69 to 76, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 31. 62 Cf. Case of the White Van (Paniagua Morales et. al.) v. Guatemala, para. 76, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador para. 31. 63 The objects of all of these declarations are established in the Order of the President of the Court of January 24, 2012. Available at: http://corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/furlan.pdf 64 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 140, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 35. 65 Cf. Caso Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 146, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 36. 20