7 37. On that same day, under instructions by the Court, the Secretariat asked the State to cooperate by not having its agents contact the Gómez Paquiyauri family or their representative, not even to seek a friendly settlement in this case, as said approaches were being interpreted by said family as “harassment with pressure and threats at their domicile”. 38. On May 7, 2004 the Court also issued an Order in which it decided: 1. To order the State to adopt, forthwith, such measures as may be necessary to protect the life and the right to humane treatment of the members of the Gómez Paquiyauri family who testified before the Court, Ricardo Samuel Gómez Quispe, Marcelina Paquiyauri Illanes de Gómez, Lucy Rosa Gómez Paquiyauri, Miguel Ángel Gómez Paquiyauri, and Jacinta Peralta Allccarima, and those who are in Peru: Ricardo Emilio, Carlos Pedro, and Marcelina Haydeé, all of them Gómez Paquiyauri, and minor Nora Emely Gómez Peralta. 2. To order the State to adopt, forthwith, such measures as may be necessary to protect the life and the right to humane treatment of Ángel del Rosario Vásquez Chumo and the members of his family. […] In that same Order, the Court ordered the State to allow the beneficiaries of the provisional measures to participate in planning and implementation of said measures, and it set deadlines for the State to submit reports on the provisional measures, and for the Inter-American Commission and the representative of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures who were members of the Gómez Paquiyauri family to submit their observations on said reports. VI THE EVIDENCE 39. Before examining the evidence tendered, in light of the provisions set forth in Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure the Court will refer to certain matters that apply to the specific case, most of which have been developed in the jurisprudence of the Court itself. 40. The principle of the presence of both parties applies to evidentiary matters. This principle respects the right of the parties to their defense, and it is one of the grounds for Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, regarding the time when evidence may be offered for there to be equality among the parties.5 41. The Court has pointed out previously, regarding to receiving and assessing evidence, that the procedures before it are not subject to the same formalities as domestic legal acts, and that inclusion of certain items in the body of evidence may take place paying special attention to the circumstances of the concrete cases and bearing in mind the limits set by respect for legal certainty and procedural balance among the parties.6 The Court has also taken into account that international case 5 See Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 46; Case of Myrna Mack Chang. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 118; and Case of Baena Ricardo et al.. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 106. 6 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, para. 48; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Interpretation of Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations (Art. 67 of the American Convention Human Rights). Judgment of November 26, 2003. Series C No. 102, para. 28; Case of Myrna