30 to defense of the parties has been respected and the alleged victims are related to the facts object of the case and to the evidence presented to this Court.14 179. Besides the people expressly stated in the application as the next of kin of the alleged victims, this Tribunal will use the following criteria to define who else will be considered next of kin of the inmates presented as alleged victims in this case: a) the procedural opportunity in which they were identified and that the State’s right to defense has been guaranteed; b) the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State; c) the evidence presented in this regard; and d) the characteristics of the present case. 180. In order to assess the evidence that allows the determination of the next of kin the Court will take into account the specific circumstances of the present case. The Court also points out that the State was guaranteed its right to a defense and that the latter did not present an objection with regard to said evidence. 181. Likewise, the Tribunal will rule what it considers appropriate with regard to the next of kin of the alleged victims that were not identified in the proceedings before this Tribunal (infra para. 420). VII THE EVIDENCE 182. Prior to examining the evidence offered, the Court will present, based on that established in Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, some considerations developed in the jurisprudence of the Tribunal and applicable to this case. 183. The principle of the presence of the parties to the dispute applies to evidentiary matters, and it involves respecting the parties’ right to a defense. The principle is enshrined in Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, in what refers to the time frame in which evidence must be submitted, in order to secure equality among the parties.15 184. The Court has stated, with regard to the receipt and assessment of the evidence, that the proceeding followed before it is not subject to the same formalities as domestic judicial actions, and that the incorporation of certain elements into the body of evidence must be done paying special attention to the circumstances of the specific case and taking into account the limits imposed by the respect to legal security and the procedural balance of the parties. The Court has also taken into account that international jurisprudence, when it considers that international courts have the power to appraise and assess the evidence according to the rules of competent analysis, has not established a rigid determination of the quantum of the evidence necessary to substantiate a ruling. This criterion is especially valid for international human rights tribunals that have ample powers in 14 Cfr. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 5, para. 29; Case of Servellón García et al., supra note 3, para. 158; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 7, para. 91. 15 Cfr. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 67; Case of Servellón García et al., supra note 3, para. 33; and Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 42.