17 value of the documents submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural stage which were neither disputed nor challenged, and their authenticity was not questioned. In relation to the documents submitted as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. 13) requested by this Court, the Court includes them in the body of evidence, in application of the provisions of Article 47(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Additionally, the Court notes that in its arguments the Commission referred to the Fifth Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Guatemala by the IACHR, OAS/Ser.L/V/II.111, approved on April 6, 2001, however it was not submitted as evidence. In this regard, the Court considers pertinent for the adjudication of the instant case to incorporate it into the body of evidence, in conformity with Article 47(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Likewise, the Court observes that both the Commission and the representatives referred in their arguments to the Report by the Commission for Historical Clarification, Guatemala: Memory of Silence (hereinafter “CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence”); however, only the representatives submitted as evidence several volumes or sections of this report, as well as the direct electronic link to the documents. Likewise, the representatives referred to the report Justice and Social Inclusion: The Challenges to Democracy in Guatemala by the IACHR, OAS/Ser.L/V/II.118, Doc. 5 rev. 1, December 29, 2003, and indicated the direct electronic link. The Court has established that if one party provides at least the direct electronic link to the document cited as evidence, and it is possible to access it, the legal certainty and procedural equity are not affected, given that it can be immediately located by the Court and by the other parties31. In this case, the Court confirms that the representatives indicated the direct links to the aforementioned documents in their brief of pleadings and motions, and that there was no opposition or observations by the other parties regarding their content and authenticity. 59. On June 30 and July 7, 2009 the representatives submitted as supervening evidence32 new measures taken in the internal proceeding (supra para. 9), as well as two journalistic notes and a list of the names of the attorneys who owe money to the Constitutional Court for procedural costs and penalties derived from the filing of “frivolous or notoriously inadmissible appeals for guarantee of rights,” as well as several actions issued in the internal proceedings after the brief of pleadings and motions. The representatives indicated that the copies of the documents presented Comptroller”) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costa. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, para. 26, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 28, para. 39. 31 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 26, Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 108, and Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra note 29, para. 46. 32 Supervening evidence submitted on June 30, 2009: “Attorneys owe Q6.4 million to the CC” published in the Guatemalan newspaper “Prensa Libre” on May 21, 2009; request by CEJIL to the Constitutional Court on June 10, 2009; list of the attorneys who owe the Constitutional Court procedural costs and penalties derived from the filing of appeals for the guarantee of rights which were frivolous or notoriously inadmissible; an appeal for reversal filed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office on January 27, 2009 against the order of December 8, 2008, issued by the Fourth Chamber of the Court on Narcotic Activity and Crimes against the Environment of Guatemala; Order of February 23, 2009 granting the aforementioned appeal for reversal filed on January 27, 2009; appeal for legal protection filed by the accused Reyes Colin Gualip on March 13, 2009 against the order of February 23, 2009, and the order of February 23, 2009 of the Fourth Chamber of appeals of the Criminal Branch, which settled the constitutional motion filed by the accused Roberto Aníbal Rivera Martínez and the process of his appeal. Supervening evidence presented on July 7, 2009: certification of Mr. Benedicto Tenas as Fiscal Agent of the Human Rights section of the Prosecutor’s Office; note of the Attorney President of the Criminal Chamber of May 25, 2009, request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to the Criminal Court of First Instance for Criminal Matters, Drug-Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes of San Benito, Petén, on June 22, 2009; Order of the Criminal Court of First Instance for Criminal Matters, Drug-Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes of San Benito, Petén of June 23, 2009, news “Bitácora militar queda en reserva” published by the Guatemalan newspaper “Prensa Libre” on July 6, 2007.