10 all the documentation that they wish to submit as evidence, so that the Tribunal and the other parties can learn from those documents immediately. Nevertheless, the Court has pointed out before that, in admitting and assessing evidence, the procedures observed before this Court are not subject to the same formalities as those required in domestic judicial actions and that the admission of certain items into the body of evidence must be made paying special attention to the circumstances of the specific case, and bearing in mind the limits set by respect for legal certainty and for the procedural equality for the parties.17 Taking into consideration the above mentioned, the Court considered that neither the legal certainty nor the procedural balance has been impaired in the cases in which one of the parties provides, at least, the direct electronic link to the document that such party mentions as evidence, since it can be immediately traced by the Court and the other parties. However, when dealing with documents from international organizations as the Inter-American Commission or the Organization of American States and its different agencies, or documents from international or domestic organizations or public institutions that can be located by the Tribunal and the other parties through the Internet or other media, the Tribunal has the authority to decide whether to admit them in the records of the case, if it thinks will be useful for the adjudication of the particular case, except one of the parties objects. This is one of the powers of the Tribunal, but it is not an obligation since, as has been already said, it is the parties' duties to submit to the Court the documents that they intend to use as evidence. Given the fact that the parties have had the chance to object to these kinds of documents in the present case and the Court has had access to such documents and has considered them as timely submitted, they are hereby admitted to the records of the case. Finally, if the parties do not submit the documents they quoted in their respective briefs and the Tribunal cannot locate them, they will not be admitted into the body of evidence and the Court hereby declares with respect to the documents mentioned in the point c) of this paragraph. 27. The State objected the statement rendered by Mrs. Etelvina Zapata on October 17, 2002, in the public hearing before the Commission. To such respect, the State pointed out that “her narration of the facts is not consistent with her written and oral statements rendered under oath in another opportunity.” Furthermore, the State objected “the two rulings of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, corresponding to the years 2005 and 2006 and the 2004 Report of the Special Rapporteur for human rights and fundamental liberties of the indigenous peoples provided as exhibits to the [...] brief of the representatives," since "it contains new facts, that occurred 16, 17 and 18 years after the facts of the case recognized by the State." Finally, the State objects “the certificate issued by the Indigenous Governor of Jambaló Cabildo, dated August 31, 2006[;], the certificate of ACIN Asociación de Cabildos Indígenas del Norte del Cauca' (Association of Indigenous Cabildo of the North of Cauca), dated August 30, 2006, [and] the extrajudicial statements rendered by Julio Albeiro Pasu Zapata and Mario Pasu [dated] August 30, 2006,” where it is confirmed that Mr. Germán Escué Zapata was a Cabildo Governor. The Tribunal admits this Modernidad”, ICAN, 2000; MARTINAT LEPILLIEZ, Françoise. Les stratégies politiques et juridiques des leaders indigènes de la Colombie et du Venezuela. Universidad de Lille 2, dissertation in political sciences, September of 2003; AGUDELO ALVARADO, Carlos Efrén. Populations Noires et politique dans le Pacifique colombien: paradoxes d’une inclusion ambiguë, dissertation in sociology, University of Paris III, Instituto de Altos Estudios sobre América Latina IHEAL, París, October 22, 2002; Nacional History Archive. Tierras del Cauca, Volume 3; CASTAÑO, William; LONDOÑO, Edgar; and ROLDÁN ORTEGA, Roque; “ARCHIVO CENTRAL DEL CAUCA, Government Reports 1871-1894 and Reports of 1873”; GARCÍA ANTONIO. Critical Introduction to the Legislation of Indigenous People. Edition of 1951; La Différence, Balland, París, 2001. 17 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 71 and 76; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 184; and Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 16, para. Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 69.