16 A. Evidence presented by the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief 57. First, with regard to the State’s argument concerning the failure of the representatives to comply with the time limits established in Articles 26(1) and 36 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court considers it necessary to clarify that the original application brief and its attachments were received by Justiça Global on February 6, 2008. That is the date of notification of the application as of which the term of two months stipulated in Article 36 of the Rules of Procedure should be calculated.37 Thus, by presenting their pleadings and motions brief on Monday, April 7, 2008,38 the representatives submitted it to the Court with a delay of one day. This brief was duly forwarded to the State, which received it on April 10, 2008.39 58. Regarding the transmittal of the attachments, the representatives sent them by mail, together with the original pleadings and motions brief on Monday, April 14, 2008.40 Given the delay in receiving them, and in response to the request of the Court’s Secretariat that they should be sent as soon as possible,41 the representatives forwarded another copy of the pleadings and motions brief together with nine of the 12 attachments that accompanied it; these documents were received by the Secretariat on May 16, 2008.42 On May 20, 2008,43 the State received these nine attachments and the notification in which, ex officio, the President granted an extension until July 7, 2008, for Brazil to present its brief answering the application. Finally, also on May 20, 2008, the Court received the original pleadings and motions brief and all the attachments, which constituted the original correspondence sent by the representatives on April 14, 2008.44 These documents were immediately forwarded by the Court and received by the State on May 23, 2008.45 59. The Court has indicated that the proceedings held before it are not subject to the same formalities as domestic judicial proceedings and that the incorporation of specific elements of the body of evidence must be made paying special attention to the specific circumstances of each case and bearing in mind the limits imposed by respect for legal certainty and the procedural balance between the parties.46 60. With regard to the pleadings and motions brief, the Court observes that it was presented one day after the time limit had expired, on the first working day following the expiry. However, the Rules of Procedure do not make a distinction between working and non-working days. To the contrary, when time limits are granted in days, calendar days 37 Cf. Note of the Secretariat: CDH-12.353/032 of June 9, 2008 (merits file, tome II, folio 552). 38 Cf. Note of the Secretariat: CDH-12.353/014 of April 10, 2008 (merits file, tome I, folio 362). 39 Cf. Note of the Secretariat: CDH-12.353/016 of April 10, 2008 (merits file, tome I, folio 366). 40 Cf. Communication of the representatives JG/RJ No. 074/08 of May 5, 2008 (merits file, tome I, folio 375). 41 Cf. Notes of the Secretariat: CDH-12.353/014 of April 10, 2008 and CDH-12.353/019 of May 6, 2008 (merits file, tome I, folios 362 and 377). 42 The following attachments were omitted from this correspondence: (i) attachment 8 – document of the Judiciary of the state of Paraná, composition of the Judicial Section–Londrina; (ii) attachment 9 – Law No. 13,115, of the state of Paraná of February 14, 2001, and (iii) attachment 12 – Curricula vitae of the expert witnesses. Cf. Note of the Secretariat CDH-12,353/022 dated May 23, 2008 (merits file, tome II, folio 463). 43 Cf. Note of the Secretariat: CDH-12.353/024 de 20 de mayo de 2008 (merits file, tome II, folio 476). 44 Cf. Communication of the representatives JG/RJ No. 063/08 of April 7, 2008, received by the Court’s Secretariat on May 20, 2008 (merits file, tome II, folio 479). 45 46 Cf. Note of the Secretariat: CDH-12.353/027 of May 23, 2008 (merits file, tome II, folio 549). Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 71; Case of Perozo et al., supra note 18, para. 32, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 35, para. 82.