22 in black and white, but the technology at the time already allowed color images[…; t]here is no correspondence between the audio and the images[, m]any of which have been arranged[…; t]he [h]elicopter that allegedly was flying over the scene of the crime is not in accordance with the facts investigated, or at the least there is no way to categorize it[…; w]hen an event is broadcast by the media, the most sensational facts are shown, and when they do not have sufficient images, they seek other supporting footage, which may or may not be of the scene of the crime under investigation.” 56. In this regard, the Court admits the video submitted by the representative of the alleged victims and their next of kin on May 1, 2004 (supra para. 27). However, it will not attach full evidentiary value to the respective item of evidence, but rather will appraise its content within the context of the body of evidence and applying the rules of competent analysis. 57. Regarding to the documents submitted by the representative of the alleged victims and their next of kin during the public hearing, the State argued that “the copies or photocopies of the criminal proceeding […] were obtained illegally and without a court order, which leads us to the theory of the fruit of the forbidden tree.” 58. The legal system is a means to attain justice and the latter may not be set aside for the sake of mere formalities,19 although the Court does seek to ensure legal certainty and procedural balance among the parties.20 This proceeding, because it is before and international court and because it addresses human rights violations, is more flexible and informal in nature than proceedings before the domestic authorities.21 59. The Court appraises the documents challenged by the State and, taking into account the aforementioned non-formalist criterion, it dismisses the challenge and accepts said documents as evidence. 60. Regarding to the documents requested by this Court, based on Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure, and that were submitted by the representative of the alleged victims and their next of kin (supra paras. 31 and 32), the Court includes them in the body of evidence of the instant case, applying the provision set forth in paragraph one of said rule. Assessment of the Testimony and Expert Opinions 61. Regarding to the statements made by Marcelina Paquiyauri Illanes de Gómez, Samuel Gómez Quispe, Lucy Rosa Gómez Paquiyauri and Miguel Ángel Gómez Paquiyauri in the instant case (supra para. 49), the State pointed out in its brief with the reply to the application (supra para. 19) that “their statements are, in 19 supra note 6, para. 42; 19 C No. 93, para. 35; Case of 67; and Case of “The Last Series C No. 73, para. 51. 20 note 5, para. 48; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. 28; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 120; See Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Interpretation of Judgment, Merchants Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 12, 2002. Series Ivcher Bronstein. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Judgment of February 5, 2001. See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra Interpretation of Judgment, supra note 6, para. and Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 42. 21 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra Interpretation of Judgment, supra note 6, para. and Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 42. note 5, para. 48; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. 42; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 120;