7 Geneva Conventions, and “other international instruments” - as is indicated in para. 209 of the judgment - regarding “non-derogable human rights (such as the right to life and the right not to be submitted to torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.” V. PROBATIVE MATTERS A) Admissibility of the evidence 26. Some probative matters, which should be commented on, are examined in the judgment. The importance and transcendence of the evidence in a jurisdictional proceeding is obvious. It has even been said that the proceeding constitutes, in essence, a broad probative opportunity directed at verifying the de facto conditions that support the legal claims. The juridical consequences are constructed on the basis of the facts. Consequently, the judge must give special attention to the issue of the evidence before beginning the juridical consideration, and, particularly, do so in a firm and reasonably certain way, so that justice may be done in the specific case. This leads to identifying some points on the admissibility, effectiveness and evaluation of the evidence, and also on the conditions for its presentation in the natural context of the accusatory system established by the Convention, its Statute and the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 27. The judgment on merits observes that certain documents “lack authentication, present defects and do not comply with the minimum formal requirements for admissibility, because it is impossible to establish precisely their source, and also the procedure by which they were obtained. Those circumstances prevent these documents from being granted value as evidence” (para. 105). In the instant case, these are documents attributed to Government agencies, which have not been confirmed by the latter; they contain deletions that prevent knowing everything that is written in them or the names of the hypothetical deponents, whose testimonies they present, and who cannot be questioned critically by the other party, in accordance with the rules of the system whereby both parties are heard, or eventually examined by the Court. 28. The Court is not denying the truth of the information contained in such documents, which it does not even discuss. It rejects them because they do not satisfy the indispensable “minimum requirements for admissibility”, as the judgment indicates. Consequently, it is not possible to begin to evaluate them, because this presumes that they have been admitted. I have already stated my opinion about this evidence, in a concurring opinion to the Order of the Court of June 19, 1998, in the case referred to in this judgment. In this particular opinion, I analyzed the disputed points of this evidence in greater detail and also observed that its admission would make it impracticable to fulfill the various categorical provisions of the Court's Rules of Procedure, such as those contained in Articles 41 (Questions put during the hearings), 46 (Convocation of witnesses and expert witnesses), 47 (Oath or solemn declaration by witnesses and expert witnesses) and 48 (Objections to witnesses). 29. In my opinion, the Court cannot admit evidence that does not meet the said minimum requirements for admissibility, with the argument that the Court has broad powers to examine it and evaluate it, linked to other information or circumstances. Indeed, the admission of evidence which is manifestly vitiated would alter the nature of a proceeding governed by democratic principles and would lead also to accepting other means of evidence that are rejected by the law or illegally obtained, taken to