6 week of receiving it, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit its observations on the State’s report within two weeks of receiving it. 4. To enjoin the State, following its first report [...], to continue informing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the measures adopted, and to enjoin the representatives of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures ordered and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present their observations on these reports of the State within four and six weeks, respectively, from the date of reception of the said State reports. […] 32. Up until the date on which this judgment is delivered, the State has complied with the provisional measures ordered in this case. VI EVIDENCE 33. Before examining the evidence received, the Court will make some observations, in light of the provisions of Article 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, which are applicable to the specific case, and which have been developed in its case law. 34. The adversary principle, which respects the right of the parties to defend themselves, applies to matters pertaining to evidence. This principle is embodied in Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, as regards the time at which the evidence should be submitted to ensure equality between the parties.1 35. 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 ample latitude to evaluate the evidence on the pertinent facts, in accordance with the principles of logic and on the basis of experience, in order to determine a State’s international responsibility for the violation of human rights.2 36. Based on the foregoing, the Court will now proceed to examine and assess all the elements that compose the body of evidence in this case within the applicable legal framework. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 1 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 40; Case of Yatama. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 106, and Case of Fermín Ramírez. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 43. 2 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón, supra note 1, para. 40; Case of Yatama, supra note 1, para. 106, and Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 1, para. 43.