Alejandra Rodríguez Cabrera, Esmeralda Cubillos Bedoya, Martha Amparo Peña Forero, Mario David Beltrán Fuentes, Bernardo Beltrán Monroy, Francisco José Lanao Ayarza, Juan Francisco Lanao Anzola, Edison Esteban Cárdenas León, Julia Figueroa Lizarazo, Luis Carlos Ospina Arias, Marixa Casallas Lizarazo, María del Carmen Celis de Suspes, Myriam Suspes Celis, Ludy Esmeralda Suspes Samper, Stephanny Beltrán Navarrete, Fabio Beltrán Hernández, Elizabeth Franco Pineda, Flor María Castiblanco Torres, Mairée Urán Bidegain, Helena Urán Bidegain, Anahí Urán Bidegain, Adalberto Santodomingo Ibarra, Ángela María Ramos Santodomingo, Sonia Esther Ospino de Matson, Yusetis Barrios Yepes, Lucía Garzón Restrepo and María de los Ángeles Sánchez; the witnesses Julia Navarrete, Ignacio Gómez, Oscar Naranjo Trujillo and Dimas Denis Contreras Villa, and also the expert opinions of Clemencia Correa, Ana Deutsch, Michael Reed Hurtado, Mario Madrid Malo, Carlos Castresana and Carlos Delgado Romero. 62 As regards the evidence received during the public hearing, the Court heard the statements of: the presumed victims César Enrique Rodríguez Vera, Yolanda Santodomingo and Ana María Bidegain; the witnesses Ángela María Buitrago Ruíz and Jaime Castro Castro; the deponent for information purposes Carlos Bacigalupo Salinas, and the expert witnesses Federico Andreu Guzmán and Máximo Duque Piedrahíta. B. Admission of the evidence B.1) Admission of the documentary evidence 56. In this case, as in others, this Court admits those documents presented at the appropriate moment by the parties and the Commission that were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not challenged. 63 This is notwithstanding the Court’s decision in relation to the annexes to the motions and arguments brief (supra para. 6). 57. Regarding the newspaper articles presented by the parties and the Commission together with their different briefs, 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. 64 The Court decides to admit those documents that are complete or that, at least, allow their source and date of publication to be verified. 58. Also, with regard to some documents indicated by the parties and the Commission by means of electronic links, the Court has established that if a party provides at least the direct electronic link to the document cited as evidence, and it is possible to access this, neither legal certainty nor procedural equality is affected, because it can be located immediately by the Court and by the other parties. 65 In this case, neither the parties nor the Commission opposed or made observations on the content and authenticity of such 62 The purpose of these statements was established in the Order of the President of October 16, 2013 (supra footnote 8). Although the witnesses José Vicente Rodríguez Cuenca and Nubia Stella Torres had been summoned to testify by affidavit in this Order of the President, the State did not present their statements and advised that “they were asked to comply with the order [of the President …]; but no reply was received.” In addition, the representatives did not present the testimony of Rafael Armando Arias Oviedo. In their final written arguments they indicated that this could not be presented because “he was not in the country and could not be located.” 63 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 34. 64 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 146, and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 35. 65 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 Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 59. 25