7 31. On October 2, 1998, the "Colegio Médico del Perú" reported that it had commissioned Dr. René Flores-Agreda, psychiatrist, to evaluate the psychiatric condition of Gisselle Elena and Paul Abelardo Zambrano-Loayza. 32. On October 7 and 9, 1998, the "Colegio Médico de Chile" presented the expert report submitted by Dr. Roberto von Bennewitz, a forensic physician, and the psychiatric report prepared by Dr. Martín Cordero-Allary on the victim’s state of health. On October 13 of that year, the "Colegio Médico del Perú" presented the reports prepared by Dr. René Flores-Agreda on the health condition of Gisselle Elena and Paul Abelardo Zambrano-Loayza. That same day, the reports were forwarded to the victim, to the Commission and to the State, who were told that under the Court order, any observations they deemed appropriate were to be submitted by no later than November 13, 1998. 33. On November 13, 1998, Peru submitted its observations on the reports in question and challenged their probative value. It also requested that the Court appoint suitable experts for the opinions ordered by the Court in its decision of August 29, 1998. 34. Neither the victim nor the Commission presented any observations on the expert reports submitted. IV PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 35. The State alleged an irregularity in connection with the filing of the victim’s brief on reparations, because: how could it be that a 32-page brief was sent by fax from Washington, D.C., in the United States, to San José, Republic of Costa Rica, seat of the Honorable Court, at the same hour (21:55 or 19:53, January 30, 1998)? The Government of Peru wants and demands a reasonable explanation of this irregularity and of why the Court did not reject in limine the extemporaneous filing of [the] evidentiary materials. 36. The Court does not consider it necessary to address this argument at length. The Court’s Secretariat has stated that the document in question was submitted on January 30, which is sufficient for the Court to flatly dismiss the State’s contention of a purported irregularity with this filing. V GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE EVIDENCE 37. Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court provides that: [i]tems of evidence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if previous notification thereof is contained in the application and in the reply thereto […] Should any of the parties allege force majeure, serious impediment or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for producing an item of evidence, the Court may, in that particular instance, admit such evidence at a time other than those indicated above, provided that the opposing party is guaranteed the right of defense. 38. The Court has previously held that its proceedings are not bound by the same formalities that bind domestic courts in their proceedings. It has been the consistent case law of the Court that some latitude is permissible in receiving evidence and that when certain elements are added to the body of evidence, particular attention must