Court takes into account that, in the proceedings before the Commission, the parties submitted various elements of information and evidence in English without providing a translation, which did not merit an objection from the parties and, furthermore, shows that, during the proceedings, steps were taken to ensure a proper procedural balance between the parties. Likewise, in the proceedings before the Court various time limits have been granted to the Commission and to the parties to forward translations into Spanish of some documents that were presented in English. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the lack of a timely translation of the said statement did not create a disproportionate burden for the State or the representatives that could justify its inadmissibility. 58. The State asked the Court to reject the expert opinion of Antonio Marlasca, because “he should have appeared before a notary public,” “and not as occurred in this case where it is clear from the document submitted that no such appearance took place, since the notary public affirms that he merely transcribed the report provided previously.” In this regard, the Court has indicated that, in relation to the reception and assessment of evidence, the proceedings before it are not subject to the same formalities as the domestic judicial proceedings, and that the incorporation of certain elements into the body of evidence must be made paying particular attention to the circumstances of the specific case. 54 Furthermore, on other occasions, the Court has admitted sworn statements that were not made before notary public, when legal certainty and the procedural balance between the parties 55 are not affected, and this is respected and guaranteed in this case. 59. The State contested the admissibility of the statements of Gerardo Escalante and Delia Ribas, and the opinion of Alicia Neuburger, because they presumably refer to matters that were not contemplated within the purpose of their statements. The Court reiterates that it will only take into account the statements provided by affidavit to the extent that these are in keeping with the purpose established in the Order issued by the President. 60. As to the substantial issues, the State indicated the following: (i) Paul Hunt “omits the analysis of the balance of interests that is essential in order to determine the existence of a disproportionate impact”; (ii) the expert opinion of Alicia Neuburger “is not useful evidence to prove the causal relationship between the alleged violations of rights” and “the damage supposedly suffered by the presumed victims,” and “is based on a series of facts that have not been proved in these proceedings”; (iii) “Mr. Marlasca fails in his attempt to draw a distinction that could be considered rational or objective between a human life and a human person”; (iv) “the statement [of Andrea Mesen] is so general that it makes it impossible to try to justify, much less prove, an alleged non-pecuniary damage to the presumed victims”; (v) Gerardo Escalante “limits the nature and content of his statement to the way in which IVF was practiced in Costa Rica at the time when he practiced it, so that he cannot make assessments or render opinions on the in vitro fertilization technique in general, or on its international regulation,” and (vi) with regard to Delia Ribas: “she continually refers to the term “pre-embryo,” using it as a basis to justify the treatment received by the embryo from its conception (or fertilization) until the moments before it is transferred to the mother’s womb […] and, therefore, it is not acceptable that she tries to justify its manipulation by hiding behind that concept, because it is scientifically proved that a full and complete organism exists at this initial stage.” The State also argued that “it is not correct […] to justify the practice of the IVF technique as a treatment for a disease that improves the health of the ‘patients’”; “in her document, she advocates the practice of cryopreservation – 54 Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 33. 55 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, para. 189; Case of Servellón García et al., para. 46; and Case of Claude Reyes et al. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 51.