28 . may consider as established the facts proven only through evidence the State has refused to forward.62 99. In relation to a similar controversy, the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia has considered that granting the States, based on reasons of national security, a general right that allows them to refuse to forward documents necessary for the development of the process could make the operation itself of the International Court impossible, and could become an obstacle for it in achieving its purpose. 63 On its part, the European Human Rights Court rejected similar arguments presented by a State with the purpose of not sending information from a criminal case file that was open ans had been requested by said Court. In fact, the European Court considered it insufficient to argue, inter alia, that the criminal investigation was pending and that the case file contained documents classified as secret.64 100. Due to the aforementioned, in the cases in which the transcripts of the investigation are under reservation, it corresponds to the State to send the copies requested informing of that situation and of the need, convenience, or relevance of maintaining the due confidentiality of that information, which will be carefully evaluated by the Tribunal, for the effects of including it in the body of evidence of the case, respecting the adversarial principle in whatever corresponds, in the understanding that, as has been indicated by the State, the domestic legislation itself allows the victims and their legal representatives access to the case files on prior investigations.65 * * * 62 Cf. mutatis mutando, Case of Gonzalez et al. (“Cotton Field”) V. Mexico, Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 19, 2009 (request to increase the alleged victims and denial to forward documentary evidence), para. 59. 63 The original in English states: “[T]o grant States a blanket right to withhold, for security purposes, documents necessary for trial might jeopardize the very function of the International Tribunal, and defeat its essential object and purpose. […] To admit that a State holding such documents may unilaterally assert national security claims and refuse to surrender those documents could lead to the stultification of international criminal proceedings: those documents might prove crucial for deciding whether the accused is innocent or guilty. The very raison d’être of the International Tribunal would then be undermined.” Cf. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Appeals Chamber, “Lašva Valley” (IT-95-14) TIHOMIR BLAŠKIĆ, Judgment on the Request of The Republic of Croatia for Review of the Decision of Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997, 29 October 1997, para. 65. 64 The original in English states: “122. [The State] refused to disclose any documents of substance from the criminal investigation file, invoking a number of reasons for that decision. First, they stated that the investigation was pending; then, that it contained certain documents classified as secret and, finally, referred to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allegedly precluded the submission of these documents. 123. The Court has on several occasions reminded the Government of the possibility to request the application of Rule 33 § 2 of the Rules of Court, which permits a restriction on the principle of the public character of the documents deposited with the Court for legitimate purposes, such as the protection of national security and the private life of the parties, as well as the interests of justice. No such request has been made in this case. The Court further remarks that the provisions of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to which the Government refer, do not preclude disclosure of the documents from a pending investigation file, but rather set out a procedure for and limits to such disclosure. The Government failed to specify the nature of the documents and the grounds on which they could not be disclosed (see, for similar conclusions, Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 104, 26 January 2006). […] the Court considers the Government's explanations concerning the disclosure of the case file insufficient to justify the withholding of the key information requested by the Court”. Cf. ECHR, Imakayeva v. Russia, Judgment of 9 November 2006, Application no. 7615/02, paras 122 and 123. 65 Cf. Article 304 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedures, approved on January 20, 1998, published in Official Gazette No. 5.208 extraordinary, of January 23, 1998, with the partial reform approved on August 25, 1000, and published in Official Gazette No. 37.022 of that same date, and the partial reform approved on November 12, 2001, and published in Official Gazette No. 5.558, extraordinary, of November 14, 2001, Article 11 (dossier of evidence, volume XXVI, folio 9319) and Case of Gonzalez et al. (“Cotton Field”) V. Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 19, 2009 (request to increase the alleged victims and refusal to forward documentary evidence), para. 61.