51 3. Request any entity, office, organ or authority of its choice to obtain information, express an opinion, or deliver a report or pronouncement on any given point. documents may not be published without the authorization of the Court. The 68. It is important to point out that the contradiction principle governs all matters relative to the evidence; this principle ensures the right of defence of the parties, and it is one of the foundations of Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure as regards the timeliness with which the evidence must be submitted in order to ensure equality between the parties. 69. Since the purpose of the evidence is to prove the truthfulness of the facts alleged, it is of the utmost importance to find the criteria used by an international court of human rights in the assessment of the items of evidence. 70. The Court has some discretional powers to assess the statements or expressions presented to it either in written form or through other means. To such effect and as in the case of all courts, it can make an adequate assessment of the evidence according to the rule of judgment based on admissible evidence, which shall permit the judges to arrive at a conviction on the truth of the facts alleged, taking into consideration the purposes and objective of the American Convention.7 71. In the interest of collecting the largest possible amount of evidence, this Court has been very flexible as to the admission and evaluation thereof according to the rules of logic and based on experience. One criterion that the Court has already pointed out is that of informality in the evaluation of the evidence, since the procedure established for a contentious case before the Inter-American Court has characteristics of its own that distinguish it from internal law proceedings, the former not being subject to the formalities that characterise the latter. 72. This is why judgment based on admissible evidence and the fact that formalities are not required for the admission and evaluation of the evidence, which is valued as a whole and rationally, constitute basic criteria for the assessment thereof. 73. The Court has the responsibility to assess the value of the items of evidence submitted by the parties in the instant case. * * * 74. Concerning such documentary evidence submitted by the Commission and by the State, as was not contested or objected to, and whose authenticity was not placed in doubt, this Tribunal admits it thus adding it to the entirety of the evidence in the instant case. 75. In its response brief (supra para. 31) the State objected to the admission of appendices 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 (supra para. 26 and 59) submitted by the Commission in its response brief, based on the argument that such evidence was neither legible, authentic, or legitimately certified. 7 cfr. Constitutional Court Case. Judgment of January 31, 2001, Series C, N° 71, para. 49.