7 Expert witnesses proposed by the representatives of the alleged victim: Horacio Verbitsky, and Danilo Arbilla. 39. On April 29, 2004, during the presentation of final oral arguments at the public hearing on merits and possible reparations and costs, the State presented the 1992 Constitution of Paraguay, the Penal Code of Paraguay, promulgated on November 26, 1997, and the Code of Criminal Procedure of Paraguay, promulgated on July 8, 1998. 40. On May 28, 2004, the Commission presented its final written arguments. 41. On May 28, 2004, Paraguay forwarded its final written arguments. 42. On May 29, 2004, the representatives of the alleged victim presented their final written arguments. The attachments to this brief were received on June 3, 2004. 43. On August 16, 2004, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat requested the State to forward, by August 20, 2004, at the latest, as helpful evidence, the 1910 Penal Code of Paraguay, the 1890 Code of Criminal Procedure of Paraguay, Act No. 1,444, and “Decisions” No. 122/99, No. 124/99, No. 154/2000, No. 155/2000, and No. 157/2000 regulating the latter. 44. On August 24, 2004, the State sent an e-mail, with the electronic version of Act No. 1,444 and the “Decisions” that regulate it, which had been requested as helpful evidence (supra para. 43). 45. On August 27, 2004, Paraguay forwarded the 1914 Penal Code of Paraguay and the 1890 Code of Criminal Procedure of Paraguay, which had been requested as helpful evidence (supra para. 43). V THE EVIDENCE 46. Before examining the evidence received, the Court will make some observations, in light of the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, which are applicable to this specific case, most of which have been developed in its case law. 47. First, it is important to point out that in probative matters, the adversary principle, which respects the right of the parties to defend themselves, applies to matters pertaining to evidence; it is one of the principles on which Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure is based, concerning the time at which the evidence should be submitted to ensure equality between the parties.2 48. In the matter of receiving and assessing evidence, the Court has indicated previously that its proceedings are not subject to the same formalities as domestic 2 Cf. Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 40; Case of 19 Merchants. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 64; and Case of MolinaTheissen. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C No. 108, para. 21.