9 Argentina in early July 1986, and the Court issued its judgment on September 3, 1996. Therefore, the present judgment will examine the procedural aspects of the proceedings before the Supreme Court and the latter’s ruling of September 3, 1996, insofar as a violation of the American Convention may have occurred. Argentina accepted the binding jurisdiction of this Court with regard to events or juridical acts that occurred subsequent to September 5, 1984. The Cantos case is not a new case, as it dates back to the 1970s. Therefore, the case itself and the decision handed down in the case are outside this Court’s jurisdiction, even though they occurred subsequent to September 5, 1984. What do fall within the jurisdiction of this Court are the events that occurred subsequent to that date and that are themselves violations of the American Convention.4 V EVIDENCE 26. Before turning to the evidence received, the Court will, based on the provisions of Articles 43 and 44 of its Rules of Procedure, make some observations pertinent to the instant case, most of which are part of this Court’s own case law. 27. In the matter of the receiving and weighing of evidence, the Court has previously indicated that its proceedings are not subject to the same formalities as domestic proceedings and that 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.5 The Court has taken account of the fact that while international jurisprudence has always held that international courts have the authority to assess and evaluate the evidence according to rules of sound criticism, it has always steered clear of making a rigid determination as to the quantum of evidence needed to support a judgment.6 This criterion is especially true for international human rights courts which, for purposes of determining the international responsibility of a State for violation of a person’s rights, have considerable latitude to evaluate the evidence tendered regarding the facts of the case, in accordance with the principles of logic and on the basis of experience.7 4 This Court notes that in its Judgment on the preliminary objections in this case, it held that in the case of the supposed violations that occurred prior to the date on which Argentina accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, this Court was not called upon to consider the allegations made with respect to Article 21 of the American Convention, as it does not have competence ratione temporis, regardless of whether the violations were committed against natural or legal persons. Hence, this request from the Commission is pointless in this case. 5 Las Palmeras Case, Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 96, par. 18; El Caracazo Case, Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, par. 38; and Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al. Case. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, par. 65. 6 Cf. El Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 5, par. 38; Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 5 par. 65, and Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, par. 37. 7 Cf. Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 5, par. 39; Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 5, par. 69; and Trujillo Oroza Case, Reparations, supra note 6, par. 38.