14 Consequently, the Court decides to admit the documents that are complete or that, at least, allow their source and date of publication to be verified. 15 42. Also, regarding some documents indicated by the parties and the Commission by means of electronic links, if a party provides at least the direct electronic link to the document cited as evidence and it is possible to access it up until the respective judgment is delivered, neither legal certainty nor procedural equality is impaired, because the Court and the other parties can locate it immediately. 16 43. Regarding the representatives’ request that the “Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of Peru, adopted by the [Human Rights] Committee at its 107th session (11-28 March 2013)” and the Country Report on Peru prepared by the Monitoring Mechanism of the Convention of Belém Do Pará (MESECVI) of March 26, 2012, be incorporated into the body of evidence, the Court notes that the former document was issued after the presentation of the motions and arguments brief on May 26, 2012. Therefore, this document is admitted under Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Furthermore, the Court notes that these documents were forwarded to the Commission and to the State; they did not object to them, and they form the basis for the written questions posed by the representatives to the expert witnesses offered by Peru. Therefore, given its nature, the Court also considers it useful to admit the second above-mentioned document under Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. 44. The Court also observes that both the representatives and the State presented documents with their final written arguments. In this regard, the Court notes that four documents presented by the representatives and two documents presented by Peru date from after the presentation of the motions and arguments brief and the answering brief, 17 respectively, and they are therefore incorporated into the body of evidence in accordance with Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure. 45. In addition, the Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements and expert opinions provided during the public hearing 18 and by affidavit that are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the Order requiring them, 19 and with the purpose of this case. Furthermore, the Court notes that, following the public hearing, expert witness Julissa Mantilla remitted a “complementary brief” to her expert opinion provided during the public hearing, which was forwarded to the parties so that they might submit any comments they deemed pertinent in their final written arguments. The Court notes that this document, which was not contested, refers to the purpose defined by its President for this expert opinion and is useful for 15 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 146, and Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 285, para. 40. 16 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 Tarazona Arrieta et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 26. 17 Supervening documents provided by the representatives: (i) Decision of the Third Supra-provincial Criminal Prosecution Unit of the Public Prosecution Service of March 31, 2014; (ii) Remedy of complaint filed by APRODEH before the Third Supra-provincial Criminal Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service on April 4, 2014; (iii) Communication of April 24, 2014, from the Third Supra-provincial Criminal Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service to APRODEH, and (iv) Communication of April 25, 2014, from the Third Supra-provincial Criminal Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service to APRODEH. Supervening documents provided by the State: (i) Note No. 056-2014AMAG/DG of the Peruvian Academy of the Judiciary of March 19, 2014, and (ii) Decision of the Third Supra-provincial Criminal Prosecution Unit of the Public Prosecution Service of March 31, 2014. 18 In its brief with final arguments, the State asserted that the expert opinion of Julissa Mantilla was not relevant to inter-American public order, because “the Inter-American Court could not be allowed to define some issues, or deal with issues that it has not dealt with previously or, in any case, adopt or vary its position in relation to some issues regarding which disagreement exists.” In this regard, the Court ratifies the decision taken in the Order of the President of the Court of March 7, 2014 (supra para. 12). 19 The purpose of all these statements is established in the Order of the President of the Court of March 7, 2014 (supra para. 12).