11 Rules of Procedure, as regards the time at which evidence must be submitted to ensure equality among the parties2. 65. Furthermore, in the matter of receiving and weighing evidence, the Court has indicated previously that its proceedings are not subject to the same formalities as domestic proceedings and that, 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 parties3. The Court has taken account of the fact that while international jurisprudence has always held that international courts have the authority to assess and evaluate the evidence according to the rules of sound criticism, it has always steered clear of making a rigid determination as to the quantum of the evidence needed to support a judgment4. This criterion is especially true for international human rights courts which, in order to determine the international responsibility of a State for the violation of a person’s rights, have considerable latitude to evaluate the evidence tendered regarding the facts of the case, in accordance with the principles of logic and on the basis of experience5. 66. Based on the foregoing, the Court will proceed to examine and weigh all the elements of the body of evidence of the case, according to the principle of sound criticism and within the legal framework under consideration. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 67. When submitting its application brief (supra paras. 1 and 13), the Commission attached as evidence 69 appendices containing 87 documents6. 68. The representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin attached 7 appendices containing 13 documents to the brief on requests, arguments and evidence (supra paras. 20, 25 and 27)7. 2 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 86. 3 Cf. Cantos case. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 27; Las Palmeras case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 26, 2002. Series C No. 96, para. 18; and El Caracazo case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 38. 4 Cf. Cantos case, supra note 3; El Caracazo case. Reparations, supra note 3; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. case. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 65; and Trujillo Oroza case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 37. 5 Cf. Cantos case, supra note 3; El Caracazo case. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 39; and Trujillo Oroza case. Reparations, supra note 4, para. 38. 6 Cf. appendices 1 to 69 of the application brief filed the Commission on December 4, 2001 (folios 1 to 356 of the file of appendices to the application). 7 Cf. appendices 2 to 7 of the brief of March 5, 2002, on requests, arguments and evidence of the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin, presented on March 8, 2002 (folios 216 to 255 of Tome I of the file on merits and possible reparations); appendix 1 of this brief presented by the