39. The Court has received different documents submitted as evidence by the InterAmerican Commission, the representatives, and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 1, 5 and 7). In addition, the Court has received affidavits from the presumed victim, Alejandra García Montenegro, and from the witness, Manuel Giovanni Vásquez Vicente. Regarding evidence provided at the public hearing, the Court heard the testimony of the presumed victim, Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom, and of the witness, Velia Muralles Bautista. 31 B) Admission of the evidence B.1) Admission of the documentary evidence 40. In this case, as in others, the Court grants probative value to those documents forwarded by the parties and the Commission at the appropriate procedural moment that were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not questioned. 32 The Court observes that some of the documentary evidence offered by the State in its answering brief was time-barred. 33 However, in application of Article 58(a) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court decides to admit these documents as it considers them useful for deciding this case. 41. Regarding the newspaper articles submitted by the parties and the Commission together with their different briefs, this Court has considered that they may be assessed provided that the refer to well-known public facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate certain aspects of the case. 34 The Court decides to admit those documents that are complete or that, at least, allow their source and date of publication to be verified, and will assess them taking into account the whole body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 42. 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 it, legal certainty and procedural equality are not impaired, because the Court and the other parties are able to locate it immediately. 35 In this case, neither the other parties nor the Commission contested or made observations on the content and authenticity of such documents. 31 The purpose of these statements is set forth in the Order of the President of the Court of March 16, 2012. The Order summoned witness Marco Tulio Alvarez Bobadilla, proposed by the State, to testify at the public hearing. However, the State withdrew his statement after this Order had been issued. 32 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, footnote 18, para. 140, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places, supra, para. 33. 33 The time frame for presentation of the annexes to the answering brief expired on October 3, 2011. The State presented on October 20, 2011, for the first time, annexes I.2, II.3, II.4, III.5, III.6, III.7, III.8 and III.9. Previously, on September 27, 2011, the State had remitted annex I.1 to its answering brief (consisting of certified copies of the “first instance judgment in the proceedings identified as C-01069-1997-00001, headed by the third judge of the Eighth Criminal, Drug-trafficking and Environmental Offenses Court of Guatemala”), as well as the curricula vitae and contact information of the persons offered as expert witnesses in its answering brief. 34 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 146, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places, supra, para. 35. 35 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 the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places, supra, para. 36. 15