122. The representatives included Annex 12, “documentary or journalistic videos”, in their pleadings and motions brief.80 The State also submitted several videos with its answering brief.81 The Registrar affirmed that Annex 4 did not indicate the date when the program had been aired. Annex 10 did not did not indicate the date or the source of the videos, and the Court was unable to open the files contained in the folder “VIDEO_TS”. The State replied that the Annex 4 video had been broadcast on April 27, 2008 over the local television station Panamericana Televisión. It also explained Annex 10 as follows: (1) file VTS 01.1.VIB is an institutional video by the Ministry of Defense released on November 16, 2011; (2) file number five, “CHAVIN DE HUANTAR”, is an institutional video by the Ministry of Defense released on December 6, 2003; (3) the dates and sources of the remaining videos could not be accurately identified, but the State maintained that the Court could examine and weigh their content to verify the facts for which they had been submitted, and (4) the Annex 10 file “VIDEO_TS” contained two videos, and the State asked the Court to strike them. 123. The Court will admit those videos that the representatives and the State submitted for the instant case within the established procedural time limits, which it was able to view and that were not the object of any challenge or objection. 124. The representatives, in their brief of comments on the State’s preliminary objections, challenged the admissibility of the video submitted by the State as Annex 4, 82 arguing that it was unrelated to the facts of the instant case, and instead was intended to “continue with the campaign to discredit [APRODEH]”. 125. The Court has previously held that its ability to receive and weigh evidence is not bound by the same formalities that apply to domestic courts in their proceedings. Thus, when certain elements are added to the body of evidence, particular attention must be given to the circumstances of the case in question, with due regard for the conditions necessary to preserve legal certainty and the balanced procedural rights of the parties. 83 126. Bearing this in mind, the Court has viewed the video that the State had submitted to substantiate “the nature of the MRTA terrorist group,” which presents an item from the “Panorama” news broadcast about a communication from APRODEH to the European Parliament concerning the MRTA and images concerning MRTA actions during the years of violence in Peru, including information about Operation Chavín de Huántar and facts that prima facie were not part of the framework of facts in the instant case. Specifically, two videos entitled “David Hidalgo revela las sombras de un rescate” and “Héroes Chavín de Huantar”. 80 Annex 3 contained: a video entitled “Protocolos y manuales médico forenses con los que trabaja el Instituto de Medicina Legal y la Dirección Nacional de Criminalística en la actualidad” and an audio and video file entitled “Video del Equipo Forense Especializado”. Annex 4 was identified as “a video from the ‘Panorama’ television program identifying MRTA as a terrorist organization and reporting on a large number of terrorist attacks it had committed. The video also reports on the APRODEH petition to the European Parliament to withdraw MRTA from the list of terrorist organizations”. Annex 10 was identified as “videos (television and others) showing the hostage rescue from the house of the Japanese ambassador and the complexities of the military operation”. Annex 11.b was identified as “video of the MRTA showing its preparations for taking hostages at the house of the Japanese ambassador, as well as the weapons of war they had”. 81 Video of the television program “Panorama”, broadcast on April 27, 2008 over the local channel Panamericana Televisión. 82 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, para. 38, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (the Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 70. 83