25 74. The Court admits those documents presented at the appropriate procedural opportunity by the parties and the Commission that were not disputed or challenged. 50 The documents requested by the Court that were provided by the State after the public hearing are included in the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. In addition, the Court notes that both the representatives and the State presented documents together with their final written arguments that were dated after the submission of the pleadings and motions and answering briefs, respectively, which are included in the body of evidence in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 75. Regarding the press reports submitted by the Commission and the State, the Court has indicated that these may be considered when they contain public and well-known facts or statements by State officials or when they corroborate aspects related to the case. Consequently, the Court decides to admit such documents that are complete or that, at least, make it possible to verify their source and date of publication. 51 With respect to some documents indicated by the parties and the Commission by means of electronic links, if a party provides at least the direct electronic link of the document it cites as evidence, and it is possible to access it up to the time of the issuance of the respective judgment, neither the legal certainty nor the procedural balance is affected because it is immediately accessible by the Court and by the other parties. 52 76. The representatives submitted certain documents with their final arguments that are part of the Commission’s case file, and that were included in accordance with Article 35(d) of the Rules of Procedure, as well as documents incorporated by the expert witness Miryam Rivera Holguín in her opinion provided by affidavit. In other words, this evidence was part of the body of evidence prior to the final written arguments and is therefore admitted. On the other hand, the State and the representatives submitted, together with their final written arguments, evidence not requested by the Court or its President, without giving any justification for its submission after their pleadings and motions brief, and answering brief, respectively. 53 Given that these are time-barred and that none of the exceptions set forth in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure apply, the Court considers that the abovementioned documents are not admissible. 77. During his presentation at the public hearing (supra para. 10), the witness Luis Alberto Rueda Curimania presented eight photographs and a book entitled “Special Forensic Team (EFE), Photographic Album of Garments: ‘Cabitos’ Case.” In its final arguments, the State again submitted these photographs. The representatives objected to the admission of the photographs numbered 1 and 2, considering that they had no bearing on the instant case. They also objected to the photographs numbered from 3 to 7, as these were not offered at the proper procedural opportunity, and were therefore time-barred. They did not object to photo number 8. In addition, they pointed out that Mr. Rueda Curimania “is only aware of the intervention of the Special Forensic Team that began at the end of 2009” and that “he is unaware of the [forensic] procedures carried out in 2011,” so they asked the Court to only consider “the statements of the witness Luis Rueda in the context of the object of his testimony.” Finally, they challenged the admissibility of the book submitted, since it was allegedly unrelated to the specific case, was presented extemporaneously and did not constitute a supervening fact. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2015. Series C No. 296, para. 41. 51 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 146, and Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2015. Series C No. 297, para. 39. 52 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 26, and Case Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 41. 53 The document submitted by the representatives: Observations of the representatives to the State Report of June 27, 2013. Documents submitted by the State: Ruling of April 16, 2012, issued by the Supreme Court of Justice, in which it granted the appeal for annulment; Family composition chart from Francisco Hilario Torres and Dionicia Quispe Mallqui; Family composition chart from Ramón Hilario Morán and Dionicia Guillen Riveros, and Family composition chart from Elihoref Huamaní Vergara. 50