18 are more legible and complete than those which they had, and requested the Court, in case it deemed it pertinent, to require the State for better quality copies of those records. On July 10 and 22, 2009 the Commission expressed to the Court that “it does not have observations” regarding that evidence. The State considered that “since the supervening evidence submitted by the applicant party is illegible, it should not be assessed,” and on July 22, 2009 the State reiterated the latter. 60. The Court considers that the aforementioned supervening evidence comply with the formal requirements for admissibility stipulated in Article 46(3) of the Rules of Procedure. However, it observes that numerous documents are incomplete or illegible. With regard to the documents presented on June 30 and July 7, 2009 by the representatives, except for the incomplete or illegible documents indicated in the appendix to the Secretariat’s communication of July 3, 2009, the Court accepts them as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, and will assess them applying the rules of competent analysis and within the factual background of the study. 61. The Court admits the documents provided by expert witnesses Carlos Manuel Garrido and Claudia Paz y Paz Bailey, as well as the photographs submitted by the representatives during the public hearing, to the extent they are related to the object of the instant case, which it deems useful, and there were no objections with regards to their authenticity or veracity. 62. With regard to the documents submitted by the representatives and the State along with their written briefs on final arguments, as well as those documents that respond to the requirements of the Court during the public hearing held in the instant case, the Court advises that neither the representatives nor the Commission submitted objections to the incorporation of such evidence; however, the State made several observations on the documents submitted by the representatives along with their final arguments, and objected to certain expense receipts presented by them, considering, among other, that they do not correspond to the proceedings before the Court. In this regard the Court takes into consideration the State’s objections, which it will value upon determination of the costs and expenses in the instant case. Consequently, the Court incorporates the evidence submitted along with the final arguments as it considers it useful, in conformity with Article 47(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 63. In relation to the sworn declarations (affidavits) of the alleged victims Amílcar Salazar Castillo (supra para. 56.a) and Francisco Arreaga Alonzo (supra para. 56.b), regarding the latter the State requested that it be dismissed on the grounds that it did not fulfill that “established by Article 145 of Decree 107, Civil Procedural Code of Guatemala” in relation to how an interrogation should be directed, hence it did not “meet the requirements of a testimony.” In this regard, the Court deems it appropriate to call to mind that the procedures before it are not subject to the same formalities as internal judicial proceedings.33 In this regard, on other occasions the Court has admitted statements which do not meet internal regulations for their issue,34 always safeguarding legal certainty and procedural equity between the parties.35 The Court deems it pertinent to admit both statements strictly to the extent 33 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. v. Venezuela, supra note 31, para. 95, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costa. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 59. 34 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra note 17, para. 114; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No 153, para. 62, and Case of Escher et al., supra note 33, para. 74. 35 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 19, para. 58; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 34, para. 62, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 33, para. 74.