-15completing the arguments or offering fresh evidence, unless the Court expressly permits it.11 63. 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 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 particularly valid for international human rights courts, which have greater latitude to evaluate the evidence on the pertinent facts, in accordance with the principles of logic and on the basis of experience.12 64. Based on the foregoing, the Court will now proceed to examine and assess the elements that comprise the body of evidence in this case. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 65. The representatives forwarded testimonial statements and expert evidence in response to the order of the President of July 29, 2005 (supra para. 27). The Court will now summarize these statements: a) Eliécer Manuel Meza Acosta, father of Juan Bautista Meza Salgado Eliécer Manuel Meza Acosta stated that, on the day of the events, he was leaving the religious service in which he had participated with his family when armed men, who said they were members of a paramilitary group, arrived. They were singling out people from the village who they would take away, including Juan Bautista Meza Salgado, the witness’s son, who was 22 years of age and a farmer. The following day, the next of kin of the alleged disappeared went to San Pedro, where there was a military base, but the base commander told them that “he knew nothing.” The witness stated that “the people of San Pedro heard the men who were in a truck crying out and shouting.” The witness said that 25 days after these events, they were told that those who wanted “to fetch the dead” should go to the Montería hospital. He went to the hospital to try and identify his son, because “he knew that [...] he had a green shirt [...] and two platinum teeth. However, it was impossible to identify the remains and there was a [body] that had no [...] head. The bodies were brought in black bags; [that is,] each corpse [was] in a bag[, and the bags were] thrown on the floor in the back part of the hospital.” 11 Cf. Case of Blanco Romero et al., supra note 10, para. 38; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 10, para. 32, and Case of Palamara Iribarne. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 50. 12 Cf. Case of Blanco Romero et al., supra note 10, para. 39; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 10, para. 84; and Case of Gómez Palomino, supra note 10, para. 46.