10 establish the identities and the degree of participation of those who may turn out to be responsible for the disappearance and execution of Mr. Santiago GómezPalomino, […] for the purpose of becoming able to impose upon them the criminal punishment due under the law.” 42. The Court takes it that with such statement the State has acknowledged the aforementioned claims by the Commission and the representatives (supra para. 40). The remaining claims on reparations and costs will be addressed later by this Tribunal (infra paras. 118 to 160). * 43. To sum up, according to the terms stated by the parties, the Court deems the facts regarding the alleged violation of the right to humane treatment, to the detriment of the sisters and the brother of Mr. Santiago Gómez-Palomino, that would amount to a breach of Article 5 of the Convention; regarding the alleged violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Gómez-Palomino and his next of kin as from the period of transition towards democracy, which started in Peru as the year 2000 was ending; regarding the alleged infringement of Articles 2 of the American Convention and I of the InterAmerican Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons; regarding the pecuniary and non pecuniary damages that would have been caused to the next of kin of Mr. Gómez-Palomino on account of his forced disappearance, as well as the matter of determining the reparations and costs, to be still in dispute among them. VI EVIDENCE 44. Before examining the evidence tendered, the Court will state, in the light of the provisions set forth in Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, a number of general points applicable to the instant case, which mostly arise from precedents established in the Tribunal itself. 45. Evidence is governed by the adversary principle, which duly respects the right to defense the parties enjoy, such being the principle which underlies Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, inasmuch as it refers to the time when evidence must be tendered, so that equality among the parties may prevail.4 46. The Court has also pointed out before that, in taking and assessing evidence, the procedures observed before this Court are not subject to the same formalities as those required in domestic judicial actions and that admission of items into the body of evidence must be carried out paying special attention to the circumstances of the specific case, and bearing in mind the limits set by respect for legal certainty and for the procedural equality of the parties. The Court has further taken into account that international precedent, in upholding that international courts are deemed to have 4 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 71; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 34, and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 37.