25 108. In the matter of receiving and weighing evidence, the Court has indicated that its proceedings are not subject to the same formalities as domestic proceedings and, 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. Likewise, the Court has taken account of international case law; by considering that international courts have the authority to assess and evaluate the evidence according to the rules of sound criticism, it has always avoided a rigid determination of the quantum of evidence needed to support a judgment. This criterion is particularly valid for international human rights courts, which have greater latitude to evaluate the evidence on the pertinent facts, in accordance with the principles of logic and on the basis of experience.26 109. Based on the foregoing, the Court will now proceed to examine and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded by the Commission, the representatives and the State at different procedural opportunities or as helpful evidence requested by the Court and its President, as well as the expert and testimonial evidence given before the Court during the public hearing, all of which forms the body of evidence in this case. To this end, the Court will abide by the principles of sound criticism, within the corresponding legal framework. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 110. The Commission, the representatives and the State forwarded sworn statements and also testimonial and expert statements made before notary public (affidavits) responding to the President’s requests in his orders of July 28, 2005 (supra para. 23), and August 19, 2005 (supra para. 28). Since most of the 16 witnesses asked that their identity should be kept confidential – a request reiterated by the Commission (supra para. 45) – because they feared reprisals owing to their statements, the Court will summarize these statements, avoiding any allusions that could lead to the identification of the witnesses or their next of kin. The Court will also summarize the expert opinions. TESTIMONY a) Testimony proposed by the Inter-American Commission27 The Commission presented the testimonial statements of six persons, including residents, tradesmen and civil authorities of El Aro at the time of the facts; their statements are summarized below. El Aro was a village where the people farmed and raised livestock, inhabited by from 300 to 500 people. By mule, it could take six hours to reach El Aro from Puerto Escondido, or eight hours from Puerto Valdivia. El Aro was considered a zone of influence of the guerrilla, because the “Nudo de Paramillo” is located there; this is the union of three cordilleras giving access to several different regions. The zone is a strategic transit point for four groups: the Army, the Police, the paramilitary groups 26 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 5, para. 62; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 9, para. 32; and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 12, para. 185. 27 The names of the witnesses will remain confidential to protect their safety.