Evidence 62. Before embarking upon its examination of the evidence received, the Court will analyze, in light of the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Court, certain considerations applicable to this specific case, most of which have been addressed in the Court’s own case law.
63. To begin with, the right of both parties to be present in order to confront and cross-examine witnesses preserves the parties’ right of defense and applies also in evidentiary matters. This principle is one of the underpinnings of Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, which provides that the evidence must be received in a proceeding with both parties present, to ensure equality between them.4 64. On the matter of receiving and assessing evidence, the Court has previously held that proceedings before this Court are not subject to the same formalities required in domestic judicial proceedings and that admission of items into evidence must be done paying special heed to the circumstances of the specific case and bearing in mind the limits set by respect for legal certainty and procedural balance between the parties.5 The Court has also taken account of the fact that international case law holds that international courts have the authority to appraise and assess evidence based on the rules of competent analysis, and has thus always avoided rigidly determining the quantum of the evidence necessary as the basis for a ruling.6 This criterion is especially valid regarding to international human rights courts, which –to establish the international responsibility of a State for violation of an individual’s rights- have ample flexibility for assessment of the evidence submitted to them regarding the pertinent facts, in accordance with the rules of logic and based on experience.7 65. Based on the foregoing, the Court will now proceed to examine and assess the combination of items that constitute the body of evidence in the instant case, following the rules governing reasoned judgment arrived at freely and on the basis of admissible evidence.
66. The Inter-American Commission provided documentary evidence when it filed the brief that accompanied its application (supra 2 and 28).8 67. The representatives supplied documentary evidence when they filed their written brief of pleadings and motions (supra para. 35).9 68. The State provided documentary evidence when it filed its brief answering the complaint and comments on the brief of pleadings and motions (supra para. 38).10 69. The Commission submitted sworn affidavits by witnesses Francisco Ramón Adorno, Osmar López Verón, Raúl Guillermo Ramírez Bogado and Jorge Bogarín González, and the expert opinion of Carlos Arestivo, all given in the presence of a person authorized by law to authenticate documents and statements (supra para. 46), in response to the President’s instruction in the Order of March 2, 2004 (supra para. 42).11 What follows is the Court’s summary of the statements submitted.