documentary probative elements provided by the parties on different procedural occasions, as well as the helpful evidence incorporated ex officio by this Court (infra paras. 60 and 61). To this end, the Court will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework. 67 A. Documentary evidence 54. The Court has received different documents presented as evidence by the InterAmerican Commission, the representatives, and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 1, 5 and 6) and to the representatives’ observations on the preliminary objections filed by the State (supra para. 7), as well as helpful evidence provided by the representatives and the State that was requested by the Court or its President (supra paras. 8, 9 and 10). 68 B. Admission of the evidence 55. In this case, as in others, the Court grants probative value to those documents presented opportunely by the parties and the Commission that were not contested or opposed and the authenticity of which was not challenged. 69 56. With regard to the newspaper articles presented by the parties and the Commission together with their different briefs, this Court has determined that they can be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case. 70 The Court decides to admit those documents that are complete or that, at least, allow their source and date of publication to be appreciated, and will assess them taking into account the whole body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 71 57. Also, regarding some documents indicated by the parties and the Commission by means of electronic links, 72 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 it, neither legal certainty nor the procedural balance are affected, because it can be found immediately 67 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 76, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 30. 68 The representatives and the State did not offer testimonial statements, expert opinions, or statements of the presumed victims as evidence in this case. The Commission offered an expert opinion that was not admitted by the President of the Court in his Order of December 19, 2012 (supra footnotes 5 and 13). 69 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 140, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 32. 70 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 146, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 33. 71 In particular, the Court admits newspaper articles that were provided within the case file of the civil action and in the case file of the criminal proceeding opened against Messrs. Mémoli, as well as the newspaper articles published by Messrs. Mémoli and the Sociedad Italiana, provided in the file of the proceedings before the Commission and as part of the annexes to the representatives’ final arguments, because they are directly related to the facts of this case. 72 In particular, the following document provided by electronic links are admitted: Law 26,551, Criminal Code of the Nation (cited by the Commission in its Merits Report, available at: http://www.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/annexes/160000-164999/160774/norma.htm); Law 3,589, Code of Criminal Procedure of the province of Buenos Aires (annex 2 to the State’s brief with final arguments, available at: http://www.gob.gba.gov.ar/legislacion/legislacion/l-3589.html), and Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure of the province of Buenos Aires (annex 1 to the State’s brief with final arguments, available at http://www.gob.gba.gov.ar/legislacion/legislacion/l-7425.html). 22