a) Response to requests for information and helpful evidence 55. Regarding the documentation presented by the parties with their final written arguments and by the State in briefs of July 10, August 16, September 6, 17, 23 and 27, and October 17 and 23, 2013, in answer to the Court’s requests for information and helpful evidence during the public hearing, and those of its President in the Secretariat’s notes dated June 10, August 23 and September 11, 2013 (supra paras. 15, 16 and 18), the Court finds it in order to admit the documents provided by the parties under Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure and they will be assessed in the context of the body of evidence. b) Objections to evidence provided by the State 56. CEJIL and the FIDH presented objections to certain evidence provided by the State when responding to the request for helpful information concerning its lack of a direct relationship with the purpose of this case.50 They also made observations on the reliability of the source and the errors and omissions in the information provided by the State in relation to the statistical data on trials held in application of the Counter-terrorism Act between 2000 and 2013. The Court finds it in order to admit this part of the documents provided by the State under Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure, and it will be assessed in the context of the body of evidence, bearing in mind the observations of the common interveners and the rules of sound judicial discretion. c) Extracts from judgments presented with arguments 57. In the briefs presenting helpful evidence and with observations on this, the State and the FIDH, made observations on the final written arguments of the opposing party. These observations are inadmissible because they have no regulatory basis and were not requested by the Court or its President. With those briefs, the common interveners and the State also included extracts from domestic judgments deciding appeals for annulment filed in other cases that would be useful for ruling on the alleged violations of Articles 8(2)(h) and 2 of the Convention. Therefore, in application of Article 58(a) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court admits these extracts from judgments. d) Newspaper articles 58. The common interveners also presented newspaper articles. The Court has considered that newspaper articles may be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or declarations of State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case. 51 Therefore, the Court decides to admit the documents of this type that are complete or that, at least, allow the source and date of publication to be verified, and will assess them taking into account the body of evidence and the rules of sound judicial discretion.52 e) Documents indicated by electronic links 59. The parties and the Commission have also indicated some documents by means of electronic links. In its case law, the Court has determined that if one of the parties or the InterAmerican Commission provides, at least, the direct electronic link to the document that it cites as evidence and it is possible to access it, neither legal certainty nor procedural balance are affected, because it can be located immediately by the Court and by the other parties.53 Consequently, documents indicated in this way are admitted. 50 Evidence presented by the State “to prove full implementation” of Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO), and on the laws in force on issues relating to indigenous peoples. 51 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 146, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 27. 52 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 146, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 27. 53 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 J. v. Peru, para. 42. 19