7 38. On October 22, 2004, the State forwarded a brief in which it referred to the comments presented by the Inter-American Commission on appendix 14 of the final written arguments presented by Peru (supra para. 32). 39. On November 4, 2004, the Center of Investigation and Legal Assistance in International Law (IALDI) presented an amicus curiae brief. 40. On November 18, 2004, the State forwarded a resolution of September 24, 2004, in which the National Terrorism Chamber “confirm[ed] that the detention measure had been changed to a notice to appear in favor of María Teresa De La Cruz Flores.” V EVIDENCE 41. Before examining the evidence provided, the Court will make some observations, in light of the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, which have been developed in its case law and are applicable to this case. 42. The adversary principle, which respects the right of the parties to defend themselves, applies to matters pertaining to evidence. This principle is embodied in Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, as regards the time at which the evidence should be submitted to ensure equality between the parties.1 43. In the matter of receiving and weighing evidence, the Court has indicated that its proceedings are not subject to the same formalities as domestic 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 parties2. 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 judgment3. This criterion is true for international human rights courts, which have greater latitude to evaluate the evidence on the pertinent facts, according to the principles of logic and on the basis of experience4. 44. Based on the foregoing, the Court will now proceed to examine and weigh all the elements of the body of evidence in this case. 1 Cf. Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 66; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 63; and Case of Ricardo Canese. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 47. 2 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 1, para. 67; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 1, para. 64; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 1, para. 48. 3 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 1, para. 67; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 1, para. 64; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 1, para. 48. 4 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 1, para. 67; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 1, para. 64; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 1, para. 48.