VII EVIDENCE 99. Based on the provisions of Articles 46 to 51, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court will analyze the admissibility of the documentary evidence submitted by the parties at the various stages of the proceeding, witness statements, and expert opinions delivered by affidavit and in the public hearing, as well as additional helpful evidence provided at the Court’s behest. It will also discuss the evidentiary value and assessment of the “procedure to reconstruct the facts”. A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 100. The Court received several documents submitted as evidence by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State, attached to their main briefs. It further received a variety of documentary materials at other stages of the proceedings (infra paras. 107 to 113). 101. The Court received affidavits rendered before public attestors from Hidetaka Ogura, Edgar Odón Cruz Acuña, Herma Luz Cueva Torres, Nemecia Pedraza de Peceros, José Pablo Baraybar do Carmo, José Gerardo Garrido Garrido, Luis Alejandro Giampietri Rojas, José Daniel Williams Zapata and Carlos Alberto Tello Aliaga. It also received opinions from expert witnesses Hans Petter Hougen, Alejandro Valencia Villa, Viviana Valz Gen Rivera, Derrick John Pounder, Luis Antonio Loayza Miranda, Jean Carlo Mejía Azuero and Christof Heyns. Finally, the Court took evidence in the public hearing, consisting of a statement from witness Hugo Sivina Hurtado and opinions from expert witnesses Federico Andreu Guzmán, Luis Bernardo Fondebrider (the latter via audiovisual technology), Jean Carlo Mejía Azuero and Juan Manuel Cartagena Pastor. B. Admission of evidence B.1 Admission of documentary evidence 102. As it has done in other cases, the Court admits documents presented at the appropriate procedural opportunity69 by the parties and by the Commission, the admissibility of which was not objected to or contested,70 as well as those requested as helpful evidence in keeping with the provisions of Article 58 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure (supra para. 10). 103. The Commission and the parties referenced several documents via electronic link, and the Court has held that, if a party provides at least the direct electronic link to the document cited as evidence and it is possible to access it, neither legal certainty nor procedural equality is impaired, because the Court and the other parties can locate it immediately. 71 As there were no objections in this case to the content or authenticity thereof, either by the parties or by the Commission, these documents were admitted. Regarding procedural time limits for adducing documentary evidence, under the terms of article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, evidence should be submitted together with the briefs of submission of the case, the pleadings brief or the answering brief, whichever applies. 69 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 140, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 40. 70 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 Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 42. 71