16 in its observations to the evidence and taking into account that the request of the Court was not made in order to give a new procedural opportunity to the parties to expand their arguments or to present additional evidence, this Court does not admit the abovementioned report of the Coordination of NGOs and cooperatives. 52. In their brief of April 7, 2010, the representatives indicated that they would send their “observations about the briefs of the final arguments sent by the Commission and the State and their annexes.” Given that this brief was not a foreseen action in the Rules of Procedure of the Court nor was it requested by the Tribunal, the Court will not take into account the arguments presented by the representatives at said time, and will only incorporate those observations that refer to the documentary evidence submitted by the State as an annex to the final arguments. 53. In addition, in the communication of May 3, 2010, related to the observations regarding the evidence to better resolve the issue sent by the State on April 13, 2010, the representatives requested that the brief be included as supervening evidence and they noted their electronic link,34 as evidence in accordance with the Article 46(3) of the Rules of Procedure. This was sent to the State, with no objections. This Court admits the abovementioned report which contains statistics regarding the lack of execution of the budget of the PNR, that will be valued together with the body of evidence and on the basis of sound judgment. 54. The Court notes that both the Commission as well as the representatives offered as reports35 as evidence and gave their electronic link. In this regard, the Court has established that if a party offers at least the direct electronic link to the documents that it cites as evidence and it is possible to access this document, the legal certainty and the procedural equity will not be affected, because its location is immediately available to the Tribunal and the other parties.36 In this case, no opposition or observations existed from the other parties about the content and authenticity of the documents. 55. Regarding the press documents presented by the parties, this Tribunal has considered that they may be evaluated when they deal with public and well-known facts or declarations of State employees, or when they corroborate aspects related with the case37 together with the rest of the body of evidence. 34 “Null Execution of the Budget of the National Compensation Program (the compensation does not reach the victims or their families),” published on March 25, 2010 by the NGO Mutual Support Grpu, availabe online at http://gam.org.gt/comunic/2010/Abr/comunicado060410-3.pdf. 35 Report from the Commission for Historical Clarification, “Guatemala, Memoria del Silencio” [Guatemala, Memories of Silence] (hereinafter, “CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence”), Guatemala Office of Service for National Unity Projects, 1999. Available at http://shr.aaas.org/guatemala/ceh/gmds_pdf/, and Office for Human Rights of the Archbishop of Guatemala (ODHAG) “Guatemala Nunca Más”, [Guatemala Never Again], Report by the Interdiocesan Project “Recuperación of la Memoria Histórica” [Recooperation of Historical Memory] (hereinafter “REMHI, Guatemala Nunca Más”). Availabe at http://www.fundacionpdh.org/lesahumanidad/Reports/guatemala/ReportREMHI-Tomo1.htm (annexes to the brief on motions and pleadings, annexes 8, 9 and 12). 36 Cf. Case Escué Zapata V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 4 of July of 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 26; Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 86, and Case Of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 58. 37 Cf. Case Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 32, para. 146; Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 77, and Case Of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 67.