11 52. On November 17, 2004, the Inter-American Commission stated that it had been “informed by the representatives […] that they ha[d] presented all the documentation” regarding the requested evidence. VI EVIDENCE 53. Before examining the evidence received, the Court will make some observations in light of the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, which are applicable to this specific case, most of which have been developed in its case law. 54. In probative matters, the adversary principle, which respects the right of the parties to defend themselves, applies to matters pertaining to evidence; it is one of the principles on which Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure is based, concerning the time at which the evidence should be submitted to ensure equality between the parties.11 55. In the matter of receiving and weighing evidence, the Court has indicated previously 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.12 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.13 This criterion is especially true 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, in order to determine the international responsibility of a State for the violation of human rights.14 56. Based on the foregoing, the Court will now proceed to examine and weigh all the elements of the body of evidence in this case within the applicable legal framework. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 57. The Inter-American Commission provided documentary evidence when it presented its application brief (supra para. 1).15 11 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. 12 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 11, para. 67; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 11, para. 64; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 11, para. 48. 13 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 11, para. 67; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 11, para. 64; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 11, para. 48. 14 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 11, para. 67; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 11, para. 64; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 11, para. 48. 15 Cf. file with appendixes to the application, tome 1 vol. 1 and 2, and tome 2 vol. 1 and 2, appendixes 1 to 21, folios 1041 to 1270.