29. The Court recalls that the State must not only specify the domestic remedies that have not been exhausted, but must also prove that these remedies were available, and that they were adequate, suitable and effective. 33 This Court considers that the State should have demonstrated the said adequacy, suitability and effectiveness. However, in its answering brief, the State merely indicated the failure to file the said remedies and their existence in domestic law. Similarly, in its final written arguments, the State merely enumerated the articles relating to the appeals for annulment 34 and for review, 35 without analyzing and proving how they could have protected the rights that are alleged to have been violated. In addition, during the public hearing, both prosecutor Yelitza Acacio Carmona, witness proposed by the State, and the State itself indicated that, since the judgment of November 10, 2003, had not been notified to the parties to the proceedings, and since it had not delivered a conviction or an acquittal, it had not become res judicata. Consequently, these statements introduced inconsistencies in the arguments put forward by the State. 30. Based on the above, and on the information presented by the State, the Court does not find that the State has proved the effectiveness or suitability of the remedy that it indicated should be exhausted in order to rectify the presumed irregularities during the investigation stage, and these will be examined when analyzing the merits of the case. Furthermore, based on the State’s declarations during the hearing, the Court does not have sufficient evidence to determine the current status of the criminal proceedings; consequently, this preliminary objection is rejected. V EVIDENCE 31. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law concerning evidence and its assessment, the Court will examine and assess the documentary evidence forwarded by the parties on different procedural occasions, the statements, testimony and expert opinions provided by affidavit and during the public hearing, and also the helpful evidence requested by the Court. To this end, it will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework. 36 32. Regarding reception of evidence, the Court has established that the proceedings before it are not subject to the same formalities as domestic judicial proceedings and that some evidentiary material must be incorporated into the body of evidence paying special attention to the circumstances of the specific case and bearing in mind the limits imposed by respect for legal certainty and the procedural balance of the parties. 37 33 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Preliminary objections, supra, paras. 88 and 91, and Case of Brewer Carías, supra, para. 84. 34 The State indicated the articles corresponding to the appeal for annulment established by the amendments to the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure published in Special Official Gazette No. 6,078 on July 15, 2012. These are articles 451 to 460 and Article 462 (merits file, folios 1046 and 1047). 35 The State indicated the articles corresponding to the appeal for review established by the amendments to the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure published in Special Official Gazette No. 6,078 on July 15, 2012. These are articles 462 to 469 (merits file, folio 1047). 36 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 to 76, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 49. 37 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 64 and Case of Gutiérrez and family members v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 271, para. 79. 11