15 of formalities, especially those under its domestic legal system. This argument is unacceptable in an International Court of Human Rights whose proceedings are not bound by the formalities present in domestic legal systems. This is the position this Court has consistently taken in its case law, wherein it has upheld flexibility on the matter of receiving evidence (Gangaram Panday Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No. 12, para. 18; Cayara Case, Preliminary Objections, supra 38, para. 42; Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, Preliminary Objections, supra 38, para. 44 and Loayza Tamayo Case, Reparations, supra 38, para. 38). The Court has already declared that in this area, international law does not require any particular formalities to make an act valid; under the law of nations, even oral statements are valid (cf. Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, Judgment, 1933, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 53, p. 71; Garrido and Baigorria Case, Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 55). 43. As for the objection to the expert report prepared by Dr. Carmen Wurst-Calle de Landazuri (supra 35), the Court considers that the document was not filed extemporaneously since it is related to the offer of evidence made in the reparations brief submitted by the victim’s next of kin (supra 7). The Court further notes that the State’s objection to the effect that the report was prepared in Peru and that the victim’s next of kin were not present, is inadmissible since the document in question is not an expert analysis done of those individuals in particular, but rather a study on the general psychological consequences of disappearances and political asylum, as its name and content indicate. 44. As for the State’s objection to the fact that the appendix to the expert report was not signed, the Court’s consistent practice has been that an appendix that is a supplement to the main body of a document does not have to be signed. 45. Therefore, the Court orders that the sworn statements signed in the presence of a notary by the parents of the victim and his sister, and the expert report prepared by Dr. Carmen Wurst-Calle de Landazuri and its appendix are to be added to the body of evidence. V OBLIGATION TO MAKE REPARATION 46. In operative paragraph 5 of the Judgment of November 3, 1997, the Court decided that the State of Peru "is obliged to repair the consequences of those violations [of articles 7 (the right to personal liberty), 5 (the right to humane treatment), 4 (the right to life) and 25 (the right to judicial protection), all in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention] and compensate the victim’s next of kin and reimburse them for any expenses they may have incurred in their representations to the Peruvian authorities in connection with this case, for which purpose the proceeding remains open." 47. The applicable law in the matter of reparations is Article 63(1) of the American Convention, which states that: If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or