Beltrán Hernández were not made before notary public. The representatives explained why it was not possible to provide these statements before notary public and to notarize them. 73 Regarding the reception and assessment of evidence, the Court has indicated that the proceedings before the Court are not subject to the same formalities as domestic judicial proceedings, and that the incorporation of certain elements of the body of evidence must be made paying special attention to the circumstances of the specific case. 74 Furthermore, on other occasions, the Court has admitted sworn statements that were not made before notary public, when this does not affect legal certainty and the procedural equality of the parties, 75 both of which are respected and ensured in this case. Therefore, the Court admits the said statements and will take into account that they were not made before notary public, to the extent that this is pertinent, when assessing the said evidence. 71. Colombia also argued that all the questions posed by the State were not answered in the statements of Sandra Beltrán Hernández, Consuelo Anzola Mora, Edison Esteban Cárdenas, Julia Figueroa, Luis Carlos Ospina, Ludy Esmeralda Suspes, Stephanny Beltrán, Fabio Beltrán Hernandez, Orlando Quijano and José Vicente Rubiano “and, consequently, they were obtained disregarding the principle of adversarial proceedings that should be ensured to the State.” 76 In this regard, the Court recalls that it has indicated that the fact that the Rules of Procedure establish the possibility of the parties posing written questions to the deponents offered by the other party and, when appropriate, by the Commission, imposes the related obligation of the party offering the testimony to coordinate and take the necessary steps to forward the questions to the deponents and to ensure that they include the respective answers. In certain circumstances, the failure to answer different questions may be incompatible with the obligation of procedural cooperation and the principle of good faith that regulate the international proceedings. Nevertheless, this Court has considered that failure to answer the questions of the other party does not affect the admissibility of a statement and, based on the implications of a deponent’s silence, may have an impact on the probative value of the respective statement, an aspect that must be assessed when examining the merits of the case. 77 72. The representatives presented observations on the expert opinions of Carlos Delgado and Máximo Duque Piedrahíta, and asked that the Court take them into account “when 73 The representatives explained that María de los Ángeles Sánchez, Orlando Quijano’s mother, is very elderly – 100 years old – so that, even though “she is extremely lucid, […] it was difficult for her to go to the notary’s office”; it therefore asked the Court “to take into account this special circumstance of force majeure when assessing the validity of her statement.” Regarding Fabio Beltrán Hernández, the representatives indicated that he had lost his identification documents, and provided evidence of this. With regard to Raúl Lozano, the representatives requested an extension of the time limit to present the notarized version of his testimony because he lived in a distant rural area. On the instructions of the President, an extension was granted until November 15, 2013, but the representatives did not present the notarized version. This is recorded in the Secretariat’s letter REF.: CDH-10.738/134 of December 2, 2013. 74 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 64, and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 32. 75 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 189, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, para. 58. 76 The State also asked that the Court “exclude from [its] assessment of the evidence all those statements that exceed the limits indicated by the President” in his Order requesting them. In particular, the State argued that, in their statements, some of the presumed victims made references that went beyond their own family profile and were related to other presumed victims or to the events of the case and the actions of the authorities. As previously indicated, the Court admits the said statements only insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the Order requiring them (supra para. 69). 77 Cf. Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244, para. 33, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 56. 29