10 the Court has decided in other cases: a) to delegate to some of its members the assessment of part of the evidence;16 b) to assign some of the judges to collect some probative elements needed for the deliberations of the Court,17 and even c) by a decision of the Court, to authorize Secretariat personnel to assess determined probative elements that the Court requires in order to decide a specific case,18 or d) to determine that some testimony and expert reports offered for the purposes of the public hearing by the parties should be rendered by means of a sworn statement or “affidavit.”19 29. The authority described above arises from the juridical nature of an international human rights court, according to which the same formalities cannot be required as in domestic law;20 nevertheless, the adversarial principle may not be violated.21 However, ultimately, it is for the Court to decide the elements of evidence on which it will base its decision. 16 In the Bámaca Velásquez case, on September 1, 1998, supra note 6, the Court decided to authorize the then President of the Court, Judge Hernán Salgado Pesantes, the then Vice President, Judge Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade and Judge Alirio Abreu Burelli to attend the public hearing convened in Washington, D.C., to hear the testimony of the witnesses, Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza and Nery Angel Urízar García, offered by the Commission. 17 Aloeboetoe et al. case. OEA/Ser.L/V/III.29, doc. 4, January 10, 1994, Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1993, p. 12. 18 In the Aloeboetoe et al. case, the Court described how “its Deputy Secretary [...] will travel to Suriname to obtain additional information on the economic, financial and banking situation of the country, and also to visit the village of Gujaba, in order to obtain information designed to help the Court deliver a judgment adapted to existing conditions in Suriname.” (Aloeboetoe et al. case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 40). 19 Cf., inter alia, Bulacio case, supra note 13, para. 62; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, para. 55; Las Palmeras case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 30; El Caracazo case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 60; the “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.), Reparations, supra note 13, para. 48; Castillo Páez case, Reparations, supra note 13, paras. 40; and 41; and Loayza Tamayo case, Reparations, supra note 13, paras. 54 a) and 57. 20 Cf., Bulacio case, supra note 13, para. 67; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, para. 30; the “Five Pensioners” case. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 65; Cantos case, supra note 15, para. 27; El Caracazo case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 38; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. case. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 65; Trujillo Oroza case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 37; Bámaca Velásquez case, Reparations, supra note 15, para. 15; Cantoral Benavides case, Reparations, supra note 15, para. 22; the case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 89; Cesti Hurtado case, Reparations, supra note 15, para. 21; the “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.), Reparations, supra note 13, para. 40; the White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 15, para. 51; Ivcher Bronstein case. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 65; “The Last Temptation of Christ” case (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, paras. 49 to 51; Baena Ricardo et al. case. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 71; the Constitutional Court case, supra note 15, para. 46; Bámaca Velásquez case, supra note 15, para. 97; Cantoral Benavides case. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 45; Durand and Ugarte case. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 45; Paniagua Morales et al. case, supra note 15, para. 70; Castillo Páez case, Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 39; and Loayza Tamayo case. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 42. 21 Cf., Bulacio case, supra note 13, para. 40; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, para. 28; the “Five Pensioners” case, supra note 20, para. 64; and Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 132 and 133. Similarly, Cour Eur. D.H., Affaire Gaucher c. France, Arrêt du 9 octobre 2003, para. 15; Cour Eur. D.H., Affaire Duriez-