20 44. Before examining the evidence it has received, the Court will define the general criteria for evaluation of evidence and will make some observations that are applicable to this specific case, most of which have been developed in the Court’s jurisprudence. 45. With regard to the formalities required when tendering evidence, the Court has stated that: The procedural system is a means of exercising justice and [...] cannot be sacrificed for the sake of mere formalities. Keeping within certain timely and reasonable limits, some omission or delays in complying with procedure may be excused, provided that a suitable balance between justice and legal certainty is preserved4. 46. In an international tribunal such as the Court, whose aim is the protection of human rights, the proceeding has its own characteristics that differentiate it from the domestic process. The former is less formal and more flexible than the latter, which does not imply that it fails to ensure legal certainty and procedural balance to the parties5. This grants the Court greater latitude to use logic and experience in evaluating the evidence rendered to it on the pertinent facts6. 47. It must also be remembered that the international protection of human rights should not be confused with criminal justice. When States appear before the Court, they do so not as defendants in a criminal proceeding, since the Court does not impose punishment on those responsible for violating human rights. Its function is to protect the victims and to determine the reparation of the damages caused by the States responsible for such actions7. To this end: The sole requirement is to demonstrate that the State authorities supported or tolerated infringement of the rights recognized in the Convention. Moreover, the State’s international responsibility is also at issue when it does not take the necessary steps under its domestic law8. 48. It is worth emphasizing that the State did not submit any evidence for the defense at the procedural opportunities indicated in Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure. In this respect, the Court considers, as it has in other cases, that when the State does not provide a specific reply to the application, it is presumed that the facts about which it remains silent are true, provided that consistent conclusions about them can be inferred from the evidence presented9. 49. Based on the above-mentioned considerations, the Court will proceed to examine and evaluate all the elements that comprise the evidence in this case, applying the rule of sound criticism that enables judges to arrive at a decision as to the truth of the alleged facts10. 4 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez case. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 96. 5 Ibid. 6 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez case, supra note 4, para. 97. 7 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez case, supra note 4, para. 98. 8 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez case, supra note 4, para. 98. Cf. Bámaca Velásquez case, supra note 4, para. 100. 9 10 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez case, supra note 4, para. 100.