13 forwarded the evidence that each party had supplied for better adjudication of the case to the other parties. V EVIDENCE 62. Before embarking upon its examination of the evidence received, the Court will analyze, in light of the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Court, certain considerations applicable to this specific case, most of which have been addressed in the Court’s own case law. 63. To begin with, the right of both parties to be present in order to confront and cross-examine witnesses preserves the parties’ right of defense and applies also in evidentiary matters. This principle is one of the underpinnings of Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, which provides that the evidence must be received in a proceeding with both parties present, to ensure equality between them.26 64. On the matter of receiving and assessing evidence, the Court has previously held that proceedings before this Court are not subject to the same formalities required in domestic judicial proceedings and that admission of items into evidence must be done paying special heed to the circumstances of the specific case and bearing in mind the limits set by respect for legal certainty and procedural balance between the parties.27 The Court has also taken account of the fact that international case law holds that international courts have the authority to appraise and assess evidence based on the rules of competent analysis, and has thus always avoided rigidly determining the quantum of the evidence necessary as the basis for a ruling.28 This criterion is especially valid regarding to international human rights courts, which –to establish the international responsibility of a State for violation of an individual’s rights- have ample flexibility for assessment of the evidence submitted to them regarding the pertinent facts, in accordance with the rules of logic and based on experience.29 65. Based on the foregoing, the Court will now proceed to examine and assess the combination of items that constitute the body of evidence in the instant case, following the rules governing reasoned judgment arrived at freely and on the basis of admissible evidence. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 26 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 40; Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 64; and Case of Molina Theissen. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C No. 108, para. 21. 27 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 26 para. 41; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 26, para. 65; and Case of Molina Theissen, supra note 26, para. 23. 28 29 Supra note 27. Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 26, para. 41; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 26, para. 65; and Case of Herrera Ulloa. Judgment of July 2, 2004, Series C No. 107, para. 57.