47. The Court decides to admit those documents that are complete or that, at least, allow the source and publication date to be verified, and will assess them taking into account the body of evidence, the arguments of the State, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 49 48. Also, regarding certain documents referred to by the parties and the Commission by means of their 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 document, legal certainty and procedural balance will not be affected, because it can be located immediately by the Court and the other parties. 50 In this case, the other parties and the Commission did not oppose or submit observations on the content and authenticity of such documents. 49. Furthermore, considering that the representatives submitted, with their final written arguments, vouchers for litigation expenses related to this case, the Court will only consider those that refer to request for costs and expenses incurred in relation to the proceedings before this Court, after the date on which the pleadings and motions brief was filed. 50. The State asked the Court to reject “the psychological reports provided” by representative Molina “to prove the supposed damage caused by the State.” It indicated that the said reports do not analyze “the supposed impact of the prohibition” of IVF on the presumed victims, “but merely indicate the effects on their condition of infertility,” which “is not the result of any act or omission of the State.” It added that the reports “appear to mention the effects” that IVF have “had on the women, which far from recommending the technique, reveals the serious effects suffered by the women who submit to this procedure,” which “cannot be attributed to the State, and nor can compensation be claimed on this basis.” Lastly, it indicated that “the psychological reports appear to reveal the opinion of the presumed victims and not the objective opinion of the psychologists.” Similarly, the State asked the Court to reject the “psychological reports issued by Dr. Andrea Meses Fernardi, in the cases of Ana Cristina Castillo León and Claudia María Carro Maklouf,” which were presented by representative May, because they merely “analyze the impact that infertility has had on the supposed victims.” 51. The State also asked the Court to reject the “financial files” of the presumed victims that were presented by representative Molina and that include “bank statements” and “certifications of earnings” based on which “compensation is sought from the State.” The State argued that, the said documentation “does not reveal in any way the expenses that the supposed victims say they have incurred and, to the contrary, contain mere numbers without any identification that has a relationship” to the proceedings. It added that “no explanation is provided regarding the significance of the banking and earnings information for the settlement” of the case. 52. Regarding these observations of the State concerning the documentary evidence, the Court understands that they do not contest its admissibility, but rather are designed to question its probative value. Consequently, there is no problem as regards the admissibility of this evidence and it will be assessed together with the rest of the body of evidence, taking into account the State’s observations and in keeping with the rules of sound judicial discretion. 49 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 146, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 36. 50 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 Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 37.