related intolerance of the United Nations, and Gay McDougall, Independent Expert on minority issues of the United Nations; however, the Commission withdrew the presentation of the said expert opinions.17 B. Admission of the evidence 1. Admission of the documentary evidence 15. In this case, as in others, the Court admits those documents presented by the parties at the appropriate procedural moment (supra paras. 4 and 5) that were not contested or opposed and the authenticity of which was not questioned. 18 The documents requested by the Court during the public hearing, which were provided subsequently by the parties, are incorporated into the body of evidence in application of the provisions of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. 16. Regarding the newspaper articles,19 this Court has considered that they can be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate certain aspects of the case. The Court decides to admit the documents that are complete or that, at least, allow verification of their source and date of publication. It will assess them, taking into account the whole body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion.20 17. Also, with regard to some documents indicated by electronic links by the parties and the Commission, the Court has established that if a party provides, at least, the direct electronic link to the document that it cites as evidence and it is possible to access the said document, neither legal certainty nor procedural balance is impaired, because it can be found immediately by the Court and by the other parties.21 In this case, neither the other parties nor the Commission opposed or made any observations on the content or authenticity of such documents. 18. Regarding the procedural opportunity for the presentation of documentary evidence, under Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, in general, it must be presented together with the briefs submitting the case, with pleadings and motions, or answering the submission, as appropriate. The Court recalls that evidence submitted outside the proper procedural occasion is inadmissible, unless it is covered by the exceptions established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure: namely, force majeure, serious impediment, or if it refers to an event that occurred after the said procedural occasions. 19. In this regard, in relation to the effects of the inadmissibility of the State's answer, because it was presented 17 days after the time frame had expired (supra para. 6), it should be noted that according to Article 41(3) of its Rules of Procedure, “[t]he Court may consider those facts that have not been expressly denied and those claims that have not been expressly contested as accepted.” Nevertheless, this does not that it will accept them 17 The purposes of these statements was established in the Order of the President of the Court of May 31, 2012, supra note 8. 18 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 40. 19 Pleading and motions brief and brief with final written arguments (merits file, folios 293 to 296 and 1100 to 1107). 20 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 10, para. 146, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 62. 21 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 Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, supra, para. 63. 8