51 During July 1992, Santiago Cabrera was allegedly working at “El Porvenir”, under the orders of Captain Edwin Manuel Lemus Velásquez, so he could not have been at the San Marcos detachment. He was not criminally prosecuted for the Bámaca Velásquez case; however, he appeared voluntarily before a criminal investigation instituted by the Public Ministry and was left “at liberty due to lack of merit”. At the beginning of the proceeding, military courts were involved, but “subsequently, they were closed [...] and the whole process was transferred to the Retalhuleu Criminal Trial Court.” VIII EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE 94. Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court establishes that [i]tems of evidence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if previous notification thereof is contained in the application and in the reply thereto [...] Should any of the parties allege force majeure, serious impediment or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for producing an item of evidence, the Court may, in that particular instance, admit such evidence at a time other than those indicated above, provided that the opposing party is guaranteed the right of defense. 95. Before examining the evidence received, the Court will clarify the general criteria for evaluating evidence and some considerations that are applicable to this specific case, most of which have been developed in the Court's jurisprudence. 96. With regard to the formalities required in relation to tendering evidence, the Court has stated that the procedural system is a means of attaining justice and [...] cannot be sacrificed for the sake of mere formalities. Keeping within certain timely and reasonable limits, some omissions or delays in complying with procedure may be excused, provided that a suitable balance between justice and legal certainty is preserved50. 97. In an international tribunal such as the Court, whose aim is the protection of human rights, the proceeding has its own characteristics that differentiate it from the domestic process. The former is less formal and more flexible than the latter, which does not imply that it fails to ensure legal certainty and procedural balance to the parties51. This grants the Court a greater latitude to use logic and experience in evaluating the evidence rendered to it on the pertinent facts52. 50 Cf. Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 61; Paniagua Morales et al. Case. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 70; Certain Attributes of the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (Articles 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-13/93 of July 16, 1993. Series A No. 13, para. 43; and Cayara Case. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14, para. 42. 51 52 Ibid. Cf. Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 72; Blake Case. Judgment January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 50; Castillo Páez Case. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 39; and Loayza Tamayo Case. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 42.