12 39. In relation to the documents provided by the State as helpful evidence (supra para. 6), in a note of July 2, 2008, the representatives of the alleged victim indicated that they “are incomplete and/or, worse still, have possibly been manipulated to prevent [the Court] from being able to examine the significance of what was really processed and happened in these documents”; accordingly, they asked the Court “to invalidate the transmission of the files requested as evidence by this medium, [Adobe] ‘acrobat reader’, that is so insecure and unreliable and, instead [require the State] to send regular copies of each and every one of the case files requested as evidence, which should be authenticated and certified […] by the actuaries responsible for the corresponding judicial secretariats.” Previously, during the public hearing held in this case, the representatives had questioned the digital presentation of the evidence requested. The representatives also forwarded a decision of Chamber VII of the National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of the Argentine Federal Capital29 that they considered that the State had not provided, even though it appeared in one of the judicial case files, copy of which had been requested. 40. The Commission did not make any observations on this request. While the State asked that it be rejected because it was time-barred and contrary to the provisions of Article 29(3) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 41. In relation to the reception and assessment of evidence, the Court has indicated repeatedly that the proceedings followed before it are not subject to the same formalities as domestic judicial proceedings.30 The Court has recognized, in its practice, the essential role played by technology in dispensing inter-American justice appropriately.31 Bearing in mind the limits set by respect for legal certainty and the procedural balance of the parties, the technological advances incorporated into the proceedings before the Court are designed to facilitate the efficient and economic performance of its functions by the eventual replacement of “paper back-up” by “digital back-up.” The mechanisms for receiving evidence should reflect these advances. 42. The documentation presented by the State appears to be complete and there are no signs that it has been manipulated. Based on the above, the Court finds no reason to reject the evidence forwarded electronically, and therefore incorporates it into the body of evidence. 43. In addition to the documentation forwarded as attachments to their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives submitted additional evidence on the preliminary objection filed by the State with their written arguments on April 7, 2008, and with their final written arguments (supra paras. 5 and 9). The State also forwarded additional evidence with its final written arguments (supra para. 9). 44. In accordance with Articles 44(3) and 45 of its Rules of Procedure, the Court admits the evidence on the preliminary objection filed by the State forwarded by the representatives with their written arguments (supra para. 5),32 which was produced after 29 Cf. decision of Chamber VII of the National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of the Federal Capital of Argentina, National Judiciary, of June 9, 2006, in case 22,405. “Sablich, Carlos Alberto”. Preliminary hearing 39/135. Chamber VII.e (merits file, tome V, folios 1124 and 1125). 30 Cf. Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 71; Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 184. 31 32 Under Article 26(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, briefs may be forwarded by electronic means. Cf. as attachment B: true copy of Report No. 428/2007 of the Discipline and Indictment Commission of the Judicial Council of November 15, 2007 (file of attachments to the arguments of the representatives on the