VII EVIDENCE 59. Based on the provisions of Articles 50, 57, 58, and 59 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as its case law regarding evidence and its assessment, 56 the Court will examine and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded by the parties at the different procedural opportunities, the statements of the presumed victims, the testimony and the expert opinions provided by affidavit and during the public hearing before the Court, as well as the helpful evidence requested by the Court or its President. To this end, the Court will abide by the rules of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework.57 A) Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 60. The Court has received diverse documents submitted as evidence by the InterAmerican Commission, the representatives, and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 1, 5 and 6). The Court has also received the affidavits prepared by witness Néstor Ramírez Mejía, and by expert witnesses Ana María Díaz, Daniel Coronell, Carol L. Kessler and Margarita Zuluaga. Regarding the evidence provided at the public hearing, the Court heard the testimony of the presumed victims Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo and Aracelly Román Amariles, and also of expert witness José Francisco Tulande.58 B) Admission of the evidence B.1) Admission of the documentary evidence 61. In this case, as in others, the Court admits those documents forwarded by the parties at the appropriate procedural opportunity that were not contested or opposed and the authenticity of which was not questioned.59 62. Regarding the newspaper articles, this Court has considered that they can be assessed when they contain well-known public facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate certain aspects of the case. 60 The Court decides to admit those documents that are complete or that, at least, allow verification of their source and date of publication, and will assess them, taking into account the whole body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 63. Similarly, with regard to documents indicated by the representative and the Commission by means of electronic links, the Court has established that, if a party or the Inter-American Commission provides at least the direct electronic link to the document cited as evidence and it can be accessed, legal certainty and procedural equality are not affected, 56 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 to 76, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, para. 13. 57 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, para. 76, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, para. 13. 58 The purpose of all of these statements is established in the Order of the President of the Court of January 25, 2012, which can be consulted on the Court’s web page at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/Velez1.pdf. 59 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations, para. 35. 60 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 146, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations, para. 36. 22