52 76. The procedural system is a means to do justice, and the latter cannot be sacrificed for the sake of mere formality8, it not being a reason for the Court to neglect the legal security and the procedural balance of the parties.9 Since these are proceedings before an international court and since the matter dealt with is human rights violations, they are more flexible and informal than those conducted before the countries’ internal authorities.10 77. The Court evaluated exhaustively the 12 appendices to which the State objected and, in respect of the above-mentioned non-formality criteria, it rejects the objection and accepts said documents as appropriate evidence. 78. Concerning the newspaper clippings submitted by the parties, this Court has considered that, even if they are not regarded strict documentary evidence, they can be taken into consideration when they refer to public or notorious deeds or statements of high State officials, or when they corroborate what has been established in other documents or testimonies admitted in these proceedings.11 79. On January 26, 2000, Mr. Jorge Nicolau, Administrative and Product Development Director of Cable & Wireless Panama, sent a note addressed to the Court, at the request of the State, concerning the workers of said company who were rehired. Since it was neither objected to or contested, nor was its authenticity placed in doubt, the Court proceeds to add it to the entirety of the evidence, in compliance with Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure (supra para. 41 and 62). 80. On November 22, 2000, the State submitted part of the documentation requested by the Court on August 10, 2000, as evidence to broaden the knowledge on the matter (supra para. 53 and 61). The Court deems such documents to be useful, and adds it to the entirety of the evidence in application of what is established in Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 81. This Court considers that they parties must submit to the Tribunal the evidence requested by the latter, whether it be in the form of a document, a testimony, an expert witness report, or of any other type. The Commission and the State must provide all items of evidence required –either on their own motion, as evidence to broaden the knowledge on the matter, or at the request of one party- in order for the Tribunal to have at its disposal the greatest number of elements of judgment to know the facts and support its decisions. In this respect it is necessary to take into account that in human rights violation proceedings it may occur that the complainant not have the possibility to submit evidence obtainable only through cooperation from the State.12 8 cfr. Constitutional Court Case. supra, note 7, para. 45. 9 cfr. “The last temptation of Christ” Case. 2001. Series C, N° 73, para. 50. (Olmedo-Bustos et al.). Judgment of February 5, 10 cfr. Constitutional Court Case. supra note 7, para. 46 . 11 cfr. Paniagua-Morales et al. Case. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C N° 37, para. 75. cfr. Durand and Ugarte Case. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C N° 68, para. 51. 12