17 5(2) and 25(2) of the American Convention are founded on facts that form part of the factual framework presented by the Commission. Therefore, the Court does not accept the State’s argument that the human rights violations alleged by the representative are inadmissible, because the presumed victim and her representative are authorized to invoke the violations of rights other than those established in the Merits Report, provided they conform to the factual framework established by the Commission. In the case of the representative’s arguments concerning Article 5 in relation to Articles 1(1) and 19 of the Convention with regard to N.V. and L.A., the Court finds that they are not admissible, because the latter are not considered presumed victims in this case (supra para. 43). VI EVIDENCE 50. Based on the provisions of Articles 46 to 51, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court will examine the admissibility of the documentary evidence forwarded by the parties on different procedural occasions, the statements, testimony and expert opinions provided by affidavit and during the public hearing, and also the helpful evidence requested by the Court. A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 51. The Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the State, the representative and the Inter-American Commission attached to their main briefs and final arguments (supra paras. 1, 5, 6 and 11). The Court also received the affidavits prepared by N.V., Andre Alois Frederic Gautier, Emma Bolshia Bravo Cladera and Marco Vladimir Vargas Terrazas. In addition, it received the opinions of expert witnesses Ana G. Cepin26 and Luisa Cabal. Regarding the evidence provided at the public hearing, the Court received the statements of the presumed victim I.V., the witness, Edgar Torrico Ameller, and expert witnesses Christina Zampas and Erwin Hochstatter Arduz. B. Admission of the evidence B.1 Admission of the documentary evidence 52. In this case, as in others, the Court accepts the evidentiary value of those documents presented at the proper procedural opportunity by the parties and the Commission that were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not questioned. 27 53. Regarding the documents indicated by electronic links, 28 the Court notes that neither the parties nor the Commission opposed them or commented on the content and authenticity of such documents; they are therefore admitted for incorporation into the body of evidence in this case. 54. Regarding the newspaper articles, the Court has considered that they may be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or declarations of State officials or when they corroborate aspects of the case.29 Consequently, the Court decides not to admit the note remitted by the State with its annex 28, because its source and date of publication cannot be verified. In a note of April 18, 2016, the Secretariat advised that the President of the Court had decided to accept the Commission’s request to modify the way in which this expert opinion was received and, therefore, that expert witness Ana Cepin should provide her expert opinion by affidavit. 26 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 140, and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2016. Series C No. 314, para. 36. 27 28 Annexes 24 to 44 and 46 to 52 of the motions and pleadings brief were provided only by electronic link. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 146, and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 38. 29