6 PROVISIONAL MEASURES 23. On July 21, 2004, the representatives submitted to the Inter-American Court, based on Article 63(2) of the American Convention and Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure, a request for the adoption of provisional measures to protect the lives, personal liberty and safety of Salvador Jerónimo Sánchez, Prudencia Cajbón, Faustina Cojom, Juan Manuel Jerónimo and Buenaventura Manuel Jerónimo, “who are involved in the Plan [d]e Sánchez [Massacre] case”. 24. On July 30, 2004, the President ordered the adoption of urgent measures, calling upon the State to adopt forthwith all necessary measures to safeguard and protect the lives, personal liberty and safety of Salvador Jerónimo Sánchez, Prudencia Cajbón, Faustina Cojom, Juan Manuel Jerónimo and Buenaventura Jerónimo, including the protection of the perimeter of their places of residence. He also requested the State to allow the beneficiaries of the measures or their representatives to take part in the planning and implementation of the measures and to keep them informed about progress in implementation; also to investigate the facts that led to their adoption, in order to identify those responsible and impose the corresponding penalties. 25. On September 8, 2004, the Court decided to ratify all the provisions of the order issued by the President on July 30, 2004, and called upon the State to maintain all necessary measures to safeguard and protect the lives, and personal liberty and safety of Salvador Jerónimo Sánchez, Prudencia Cajbon, Faustina Cojom, Juan Manuel Jerónimo and Buenaventura Manuel Jerónimo. VI EVIDENCE 26. Before examining the evidence provided, in light of the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court will make some observations applicable to this specific case, most of which have been developed in its case law. 27. 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.3 28. The proceedings before the Court are not subject to the same formalities as domestic proceedings. 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 especially true for international human rights courts, which have greater 3 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.