Ana C. Deutsch. 10. On July 5 and 6, 2002 the Secretariat, under instructions by the President, requested information and some documentation from the representatives of the next of kin of the victims and from the State as evidence to facilitate adjudication, pursuant to Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure. On July 26, 2002 the State submitted the information and legislation requested, and on the 30th of that same month and year, the representatives of the next of kin of the victims submitted the documents requested. 11. On August 26, 2002 the representatives of the next of kin of the victims, the Commission and the State filed their respective briefs with final arguments. The representatives of the next of kin of the victims also submitted several appendices together with that brief. III COMPETENCE 12. The Court is competent, under the terms set forth in Articles 62 and 63(1) of the Convention, to decide on reparations, legal costs and expenses in the instant case, in view of the fact that Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 31, 1973, and it recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. IV REPRESENTATION OF THE NEXT OF KIN OF THE VICTIMS 13. With respect to representation of the next of kin of the victims in these proceedings, the Court notes that the principals and their proxies were clearly identified in the powers of attorney supplied by the representatives of the aforementioned next of kin, as well as the purpose of the representation. However, in some powers of attorney there is no specification of the reason why each of the next of kin did not directly grant a power of attorney to those who have acted as proxies before the bodies of the inter-American system for protection of human rights. 14. The Court deems it pertinent to issue a reminder that proceedings before an international tribunal are not subject to the same formalities followed under domestic legislation,2 and therefore the acts and instruments used in proceedings before the Court are not subject to said formalities. The usual practice of this Court with respect to rules of representation has been based on those principles, and therefore it has been flexible and this has been applied indiscriminately to the States, to the Inter-American Commission and, during the reparations phase, to the victims in the case or their next of kin.3 2 Cf. El Caracazo Case. Reparations (Art.63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). August 29, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 95, para. 38; Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations (Art.63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). February 27, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 92, para. 37; and Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations (Art.63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). February 22, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 91, para. 15. 3 Cf. Castillo Páez Case. Reparations (Art.63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). November 27, 1998 Judgment. Series C No. 43, paras. 65 and 66; and Loayza Tamayo Case. Reparations (Art.63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). November 27, 1998 Judgment. Series C No. 42, paras. 99 and 100.