19 47. In this case, the Commission provided the evidence with the application, which was presented in due time. The State did not contribute any evidence, because its brief answering the application was rejected by the Court because it was submitted after the statutory time limit had expired (supra para. 24, 30 and 43). 48. Before examining the evidence in the case file, the Court must define the criteria that it will use. 49. In the first place, it must take into consideration the context of the proceeding before an international court of human rights, which is more flexible and less formal than the proceeding under domestic law. 50. The Court has indicated that the criteria for evaluating the evidence before an international human rights court is broader, because determination of the international responsibility of a State due to the violation of human rights allows the court a greater flexibility in the evaluation of the evidence provided to it on the pertinent facts, in accordance with the rules of logic and based on experience.4 51. Mere formalities cannot affect the justice that an individual hopes to obtain by resorting to a procedural system; although attention must always be given to legal certainty and the procedural balance of the parties. 52. It is worth emphasizing that, in this case, the State did not submit any type of evidence in answer to the application at the procedural opportunities indicated in Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure. During the public hearing on the merits of the case, Chile concentrated its defense on the argument that it had submitted a draft reform to article 19(12) of the Constitution in order to modify the norm of internal law that engaged its international responsibilities through its competent organs, and on the fact that everything that the Commission had sought in its application would be covered by the adoption of the constitutional reform, except with regard to reparations. 53. In this respect, the Court considers, as it has in other case, that when the State does not specifically answer the application, the facts about which it keeps silent are assumed to be true, provided that conclusions consistent with this can be inferred from the evidence.5 54. The Court will now evaluate the documents, testimonies and expert reports that comprise the pool of evidence in the instant case, according to the rule of sound critical examination that will allow it to ascertain the truth of the alleged facts. 55. With regard to the documentary evidence contributed by the Commission (supra para. 42), the Court considers that the documents submitted are valid, as they were not contested or challenged, nor was their authenticity put in doubt. 56. As to the testimonies given in the instant case, which were not contradicted or contested, the Court admits them and grants them full probative value. 4 cf. Constitutional Court case. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para.46. 5 cf. Constitutional Court case, supra note 4, para. 48.