28 [i]tems of evidence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if previous notification thereof is contained in the application and in the reply thereto [...]. Should any of the parties allege force majeure, serious impediment or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for producing an item of evidence, the Court may, in that particular instance, admit such evidence at a time other than those indicated above, provided that the opposing party is guaranteed the right of defense. 65. In an international tribunal such as the Court, the purpose of which is the protection of human rights, the procedure has special characteristics that distinguish it from proceedings under domestic law. The former is less formal and more flexible than the latter, although this does not mean that it fails to ensure legal certainty and procedural fairness between the parties6. 66. As the Court has also indicated, determining a State’s international responsibility for the violation of human rights requires greater flexibility in evaluating the evidence provided to the Court, in accordance with the rules of logic and based on experience7. 67. Regarding the procedures for offering evidence, the Court has said that the procedural system is a means of carrying out justice and […] this cannot be sacrificed in favor of mere formalities. Within certain limits of time and reason, certain omissions or delays in the observance of the procedures, may be exempted, if an adequate balance between justice and legal certainty is maintained8. 68. In this case, the State did not present any evidence for the defense at the procedural opportunities indicated in article 43 of the Rules of Procedure. In that respect, the Court considers, as it has in other cases, that, in principle, it is possible to presume that the facts set out in the application about which the State has kept silent are true, provided that conclusions consistent with such facts may be inferred from them9. 69. Based on the foregoing, the Court will proceed to examine and evaluate all the elements that comprise the pool of evidence in this case, in accordance with the rule of sound criticism, which will allow the judges to appraise and establish the truth of the alleged facts10. 70. In particular, with regard to the various newspaper articles contributed by the Commission, the Court reiterates that, although they may not be considered documentary evidence, they are important for two reasons: they corroborate the information offered in some of the evidentiary elements and confirm that the facts referred to are public and generally known11. Therefore, the Court adds those articles to the pool of evidence as an appropriate instrument for verifying the truth of the facts of the case, in conjunction with the other elements contributed. 6 Cf. “The Last Temptation of Christ” case (Olmedo Bustos et al.), Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, paras. 49 and 51. 7 Cf. “The Last Temptation of Christ” case (Olmedo Bustos et al.), supra note 6, para. 50. 8 Cf. Constitutional Court case, supra Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para 45. 9 Cf. Constitutional Court case, supra note 8, para. 48. 10 Cf. “The Last Temptation of Christ” case (Olmedo Bustos et al.), supra note 6, para. 54. Cf. Constitutional Court case, supra note 8, para. 53. 11