to decide the cases submitted to its consideration, and this can be sent directly to the Court by the respective organ or authority, without necessarily being channeled through the State’s Agents in the specific case. 64. In response to these requests, at different times, the State provided part of the documentation through its Agents for this case, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Prosecutor General’s Office, and the Ombudsman’s Office.66 In addition, in a note of March 21, 2013, the State indicated that “the request for information on matters that were not directly related to these matters [was] not pertinent,” because “what is being debated is the presumed responsibility of the State only and exclusively for the displacements that supposedly occurred as a result of Operation Genesis and the murder of Marino López.” In this regard, the Court reiterates the content of note CDH-12,573/179 of April 8, 2013, in which it recalled that “it is for the Court to determine the pertinence and assessment of any request for evidence made by the Court, and not the parties to the litigation.”67 65. Once the documentation had been received, and based on the adversarial principle and the right of defense of the parties, it was all forwarded to the parties with a note of the Secretariat dated June 19, 2013. At that time, both parties and the Commission were granted until July 3, 2013, to present any observations they deemed pertinent “on all the information and the documentation sent by the State and by Colombian institutions that had been requested in application of Article 58 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, with the express stipulation that they should respect the confidentiality of this information.” It was noted that that Court would decide on the admissibility of this documentation and of the respective arguments at the appropriate time. 66. On July 3, 2013, the State indicated that it had no knowledge of the content of the documentation sent by the Prosecutor General’s Office because it had been forwarded directly and in a sealed envelope by diplomatic channels. The State added “that if the Court takes into account the new elements obtained under Article 58(c) in its judgment, without having granted the State the opportunity to comment on them at the appropriate time, it would be responsible for a flagrant violation of the right of the State to due process of law.” In its notes of July 15 and August 13, 2013, the State also considered that the Court had “violated due process of law flagrantly by requesting [helpful evidence] at the inappropriate procedural moment”; namely, after the hearing and when the final arguments had been presented.” 67. Regarding the State’s arguments concerning the procedural occasion to request evidence, the Court reiterates that, under Article 58(c) of the Rules of Procedure, it may request any entity, office, organ or authority of its choice to obtain information, to express an opinion, or to prepare a report or opinion on any specific point “at any stage of the proceedings.” This authority to request helpful evidence at any stage of the proceedings conferred by the Court’s Rules of Procedure has been put into practice in numerous contentious cases with regard to Colombia68 and other States,69 at different stages of the proceedings; for example, in the order 66 In communications of March 21 and 22, 2013, Colombia forwarded part of the documents requested on March 8, 2013. On April 9, 2013, through the Director of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia, it forwarded documentation issued by the Colombian Prosecutor General’s Office in response to the information requested in notes CDH-12,573/146 and CDH-12,573/164 of March 8 and 22, 2013, respectively. Also, on June 5, 2013, the Ombudsman’s Office forwarded documentation in response to the information requested in the Secretariat’s notes of March 8 and May 10, 2013. 67 On that occasion, it indicated that “if the State has not provided any of the documentation because it considers that it is unrelated to the purpose of the case […] that it [should] forward it all within an additional time frame granted until April 19, 2013.” 68 Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 11; Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, and reparations. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paras. 24, 25, 28 and 35; Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 68; Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 7; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, paras. 9 and 12; Case of Escué 23