certificates; or at times both birth certificates and life certificates to establish their status as victim; or did not produce any document in support, the Respondent State submits that in conformity with extant only the two above-mentioned national legislation, each beneficiary should produce not at the same documents time, but also certificates of heredity. 52. The Court notes that according to Article 26 (2) of the Protocol establishing it, “the Court may receive written and oral evidence including expert testimony and shall make its decision on the basis of such evidence”. This provision which highlights the principle of free admissibility of evidence implies in particular that the Court is not limited by internal restrictive rules of law with regard to admissible evidence. It may therefore decide that a type of evidence required under domestic law is not necessarily required before it as an international court. 53, Along the same lines, it has been ruled that: “This obligation to make reparations is regulated, in all its aspects [including the determination of beneficiaries] by international law, and cannot be modified by the respondent State nor can it fail to comply with it, invoking to this end provisions of its domestic law”’®. 54. In the instant case, the Court is of the opinion that to establish their status as victim, the Applicants, natural persons, mentioned earlier (para 50) do not need to produce a certificate of heredity as required under Burkinabe law. As the Court noted earlier (para. 46), the relevant issue here is not to know whether or not a person is an heir but rather to know whether such a person is a recognized victim in light of international human rights law. In the view of the Court, spouses should produce only their marriage certificate and their life certificate or any other equivalent proof. As for the children, they only have to produce their birth certificate or any other equivalent evidence to show proof of their 19 JACHR: Caracazo v. Venezuela, (Reparations and Costs), Judgment of 29 August 2002 para 77: "This obligation to repair is, in all its aspects, [including the determination of the beneficiaries] governed by international law and cannot be changed by the Respondent State and the latter cannot avoid it by invoking the provisions of domestic law in this regard" [Registry translation]; See also: IACHR: Montero-Artanguren and Others (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), Judgment of 5 July 2006, para. 117. 18 (es