11 Convention on Human Rights, the Convention’s preamble and the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were all violated in the proceedings that the military courts conducted against the alleged victims. 56. On March 19, 1999, the State filed its final pleading asserting that the trials conducted in the domestic courts had proven the alleged victims’ ties to terrorism. It argued that the alleged victims’ alien status did not shield them from prosecution under Peruvian criminal law. It added that inasmuch as the proceedings in which the alleged victims “were tried were conducted with scrupulous regard for the procedural guarantees established under Peruvian law, especially those of due process and the right of self defense,” they should be neither compensated nor released. It said that from 1980 onward, terrorism had created a very tense situation in Peru that had necessitated successive, government-ordered states of emergency, all, it said, in accordance with Article 27 of the Convention and the provisions of its own Constitution. The emergency laws that the government was compelled to enact became part of the State’s strategy for combating terrorism. 57. On April 26 and May 10, 1999, the State sent information on the alleged victims’ prison situation and visits. 58. On May 19, 1999, the State sent a copy of a December 1872 ruling of the United States Supreme Court on the subject of aliens convicted of crimes. V GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE EVIDENCE 59. Article 43 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure stipulates the following: Items of evidence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if previous notification thereof is contained in the application and in the reply thereto […] Should any of the parties allege force majeure, serious impediment or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for producing an item of evidence, the Court may, in that particular instance, admit such evidence at a time other than those indicated above, provided that the opposing party is guaranteed the right of defense. 60. The Court has held previously that the proceedings conducted before the Court are not subject to the same formalities required in domestic courts. Its consistent case law has been that its criteria for admitting items into evidence are flexible and the addition of certain elements to the evidence must take particular account of the circumstances of the case in question and the limitations necessitated by the need to protect the principles of legal certainty and equality of arms. 61. As for the formalities required in both the application and the reply as regards the tendering of evidence, the Court has held that the procedural system is a means of attaining justice and … the latter cannot be sacrificed for the sake of mere formalities. Keeping within certain timely and reasonable limits, some omissions or delays in complying with procedure may be excused, provided that a suitable balance between justice and legal certainty is preserved.3 3. Cayara Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14, para. 42. See also Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 70.