11 birth certificates or copies of the birth registration of Huber Pérez Castaño and Luis Alberto Gómez Ramírez, which had been requested previously, but could not be forwarded by the State owing to lack of information on the complete names of these alleged victims. The Secretariat also reiterated to the State that it should forward by July 2, 2004, at the latest, the documents and information that were pending with regard to the helpful evidence on possible reparations and costs (supra para. 58) and with regard to helpful evidence on merits (supra para. 60), requested by the Court in the Order of April 24, 2004 (supra para. 55). The State failed to submit this documentation. 62. On June 26, 2004, Colombia presented a brief, with which it forwarded a copy of the birth registration of the alleged victim, Rubén Emilio Pineda Bedoya, and of eight of his next of kin, in relation to the helpful evidence on possible reparations and costs requested by the Secretariat of the Court on the instructions of the President (supra paras. 50 and 55). V THE EVIDENCE 63. Before examining the evidence received, the Court will make some observations, in light of the provisions of Article 43 and 44 of the Rules of Procedure, which are applicable to the specific case, most of which have been developed in its case law. 64. First, it is important to point out that 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 43 of the Rules of Procedure is based, concerning the time at which the evidence should be submitted to ensure equality between the parties.3 65. 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 proceedings and, when incorporating certain elements into the body of evidence, particular attention must be paid to the circumstances of the specific case and to the limits imposed by respect for legal certainty and the procedural equality of the parties.4 Likewise, the Court has taken account of international case law; by considering that international courts have the authority to assess and evaluate the evidence according to the rules of sound criticism, it has always avoided a rigid determination of the quantum of evidence needed to support a judgment.5 This criterion is especially true for international human rights courts, which have greater latitude to assess the evidence on the pertinent facts, in accordance with the 3 Cf. 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 Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 40. 4 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 3, para. 48; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 3, para. 120; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 3, para. 42. 5 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note, para. 48; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 3, para. 120; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 3, para. 42.