Moreover, the Article 33 (3) gives the lawyer a possibility, instead of choosing the address at the seat of the Court, to authorize that the notification be sent by fax or by any technical means of communication. Since the applicant chose his domicile at the seat of this Court, he was not required to comply with paragraph 3 of the aforementioned article. The Article 28 (3) of the same legal document provides that "A lawyer assisting or representing a party shall deliver a certificate to the clerk of the court stating that he or she is entitled to practice before a court of a Member State or another State party to the Treaty." In the present case, such requirement is fulfilled in view of the document presented by the representative of applicant and it can be found with the proceedings. In the light of the foregoing, we consider that the application initiating proceedings is admissible. b) On the rejection of the documentary evidence submitted by the applicant The defendant asserted that the applicant, in order to demonstrate his pleas, offered 13 documents as evidence which were not communicated to him (defendant) and that this constituted a breach of the adversarial principle and equality of arms and therefore the documents must be rejected. It is well known that the court must observe and enforce the adversarial principle throughout the entire process, and it is unlawful, unless it is manifestly unnecessary, to rule on matters of law or fact, even if it is of non-official knowledge, without the parties being able to comment on them. As can be seen, the rule of the adversary is a general principle of law, according to which a court can not rule on matters of law or fact, even if it is of non-official knowledge, without being previously given to the parties, the effective possibility to discuss, challenge and value them. 13