8 proceedings and, 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 parties. Likewise, the Court has taken account of international case law; by considering that international courts have the authority to assess and evaluate the evidence according to the rules of sound criticism, it has always avoided a rigid determination of the quantum of evidence needed to support a judgment. This criterion is especially true for international human rights courts, which have greater latitude to assess the evidence on the pertinent facts, in accordance with the principles of logic and on the basis of experience, in order to determine the international responsibility of a State for the violation of human rights.3 49. Based on the foregoing, the Court will now proceed to examine and weigh all the elements of the body of evidence in this case, according to the principle of sound criticism within the applicable legal framework. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 50. The Inter-American Commission provided documentary evidence when submitting its application brief (supra paras. 1 and 13).4 51. The State forwarded a complete copy of the motion for dismissal filed by Mr. Canese on November 11, 1997, before the Third Chamber of the Court of Criminal Appeal,5 which had been submitted incomplete as part of attachment 21 to the Commission’s application (supra paras. 1 and 13). 52. The representatives of the alleged victim submitted documentation when forwarding their brief with requests and arguments (supra para. 18),6 and when presenting their final written arguments (supra para. 42).7 53. The State attached various documents as evidence to its brief in answer to the application and with observations on the brief with requests and arguments (supra para. 21).8 54. The representatives of the alleged victim and the State presented a copy of decision and judgment No. 1362 handed down by the Criminal Chamber of the 3 Cf. Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 2, para. 41; Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 2, para. 65; and Case of Molina-Theissen. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 23. 4 Cf. attachments 1 to 23 of the application brief of June 12, 2002, submitted on June 13 and August 9, 2002 (folios 1 to 323 of the file of attachments to the application). 5 Cf. folios 316 to 320 of tome II of the file on merits and possible reparations and costs. 6 Cf. attachments 1 to 11 of the brief with requests and arguments of September 9, 2002, submitted on September 12 and 20, 2002 (folios 566 to 617 of the file of attachments to the brief with requests and arguments). 7 Cf. folios 926 to 950 of tome IV of the file on merits and possible reparations and costs. 8 Cf. attachments 1 to 4 to the brief in answer to the application, and with observations on the brief with requests and arguments of November 15, 2002, submitted on November 22, 2002 (folios 619 to 1403 of tomes I and II of the file of attachments to the brief in answer to the application, and with observations on the brief with requests and arguments).