19 76. The principle of the presence of the parties to a dispute applies to evidentiary matters, and it involves respecting the parties’ right to defense. This principle is contained in Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, regarding the time frame in which the evidence must be submitted, in order to secure equality among the parties.10 77. It is well-settled law and practice that international procedures relating to the admission and evaluation of evidence are not subject to the same formalities as domestic judicial procedures. This principle is especially applicable to international human rights tribunals, which enjoy greater flexibility in assessing the evidence presented before them, in accordance with the rules of logic and on the basis of experience. Evidence may be admitted only after careful attention to the circumstances of the particular case, while bearing in mind the limits imposed by a proper respect for judicial certainty and procedural equality as between the parties.11 78. Against this background, the Court will proceed to examine and evaluate all of the elements that comprise the corpus of evidence in the instant case. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 79. Regarding the documentary evidence presented by the parties, pursuant to the President’s Order of August 5, 2004 (supra paragraph 18), the Commission submitted the affidavit of the expert witness Thomas S. Polimé. The Court considers it appropriate to summarize said affidavit. a) Expert report of Thomas S. Polimé, anthropologist Dr. Polimé’s affidavit discussed the following subjects: 1) general information on the Maroons in Suriname; 2) N’djuka social structure, religious beliefs, mourning traditions, local government and justice systems; 3) history of Moiwana Village; 4) events prior to, during and after the attack at Moiwana Village; 5) the impact of the attack and the subsequent denial of justice; and 6) information relevant to the possible award of reparations in the present case. B) TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE 80. During the public hearing (supra paragraph 21), the Court heard oral testimony from the witnesses and expert witness proposed by the Commission. The Court considers it appropriate to summarize these declarations. a) Stanley Rensch, founder of Moiwana ’86 The massacre of November 29, 1986 was unprecedented; it is one of the most notorious human rights violations in Suriname. In recognition of its “systematic,” “grave” and “terrible nature,” they named the human rights organization Moiwana ‘86 after it. The perpetrators of the attack were 10 Cf. Case of Caesar. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, para. 41; Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 9, para. 31; and Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 62. 11 Cf. Case of Caesar, supra note 10, para. 42; Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 9, para. 33; and Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía, supra note 10, para. 64.