16 61. The State ratified the Inter-American Convention against Torture on November 9, 1999. That Convention entered into force for this State, pursuant to Article 22 of said Convention, on December 9, 1999. 62. The facts in the instant case that took place before December 9, 1999 are not under the jurisdiction of the Court according to the terms of this instrument. However, the Court would retain jurisdiction to rule on acts or facts in violation of said Convention that occurred after that date.8 63. The Court has jurisdiction to hear the facts of the sub judice case in light of the American Convention. 64. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court dismisses the second preliminary objection raised by the State. VI EVIDENCE 65. Before examining the evidence tendered, the Court, in light of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, will state certain considerations that apply to the specific case, most of which have been developed in the jurisprudence of this Court. 66. The principle of adversarial proceedings applies to probatory matters, and among other things this entails respect for the rights of the parties to defense. This principle is reflected in Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, regarding when evidence must be offered, therefore to be equality between the parties.9 67. The Court has pointed out previously that the proceedings before it are not subject to the same formalities as domestic judicial actions, and that the inclusion of specific items in the body of evidence must be done paying special attention to the circumstances of the concrete case and ensuring respect for legal certainty and procedural balance among the parties.10 The Court has also taken into account that international jurisprudence has avoided a rigid determination of the quantum of evidence necessary as grounds for a ruling,11 bearing in mind that international courts have the authority to appraise and assess evidence based on the rules of competent analysis. This criterion is especially valid in regards to international human rights courts, which have ample flexibility to assess the evidence tendered before them in accordance with the rules of logic and based on experience.12 8 See Case of the Goméz Paquiyauri Brothers. July 8, 2004 Judgment. Series C No. 110, para. 114; Case of Maritza Urrutia. November 27, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 103, para. 95; and Case of Bámaca Velásquez . November 25, 2000 Judgment, Series C No. 70, para. 223. 9 See Case of the Goméz Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 8, para. 40; Case of the 19 Tradesmen. July 5, 2004 Judgment. Series C No. 109, para. 64; and Case of Molina Theissen. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights), July 3, 2004 Judgment, Series C, No. 108, para. 21. 10 See Case of the Goméz Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 8, para. 41; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 9, para. 65; and Case of Molina Theissen . Reparations, supra note 9, para. 23. 11 See Case of the Goméz Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 8, para. 41; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 9, para. 65; and Case of Molina Theissen . Reparations, supra note 9, para. 23. 12 See Case of the Goméz Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 8, para. 41; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 9, para. 65; and Case of Molina Theissen . Reparations, supra note 9, para. 23.