-8should be submitted to ensure equality between the parties.3 32. According to the Court’s practice, at the commencement of each procedural stage, the parties must indicate the evidence they will offer at the first opportunity they are given to communicate with the Court in writing. Moreover, in exercise of the discretional powers included in Article 45 of its Rules of Procedure, the Court or its President may request the parties to provide additional probative elements as helpful evidence; and this shall not provide a new opportunity for expanding or completing the arguments or offering fresh evidence, unless the Court expressly permits it.4 33. In the matter of receiving and weighing evidence, the Court has indicated that its proceedings are not subject to the same formalities as domestic proceedings and, when incorporating certain elements into the body of evidence, particular attention must be paid to the circumstances of the specific case and to the limits imposed by respect for legal certainty and the procedural equality of the parties. Likewise, the Court has taken international case law into account; by considering that international courts have the authority to assess and evaluate the evidence according to the rules of sound criticism, it has always avoided a rigid determination of the quantum of evidence needed to support a judgment. This criterion is true for international human rights courts, which have greater latitude to evaluate the evidence on the pertinent facts, in accordance with the principles of logic and on the basis of experience.5 34. Based on the foregoing, the Court will now proceed to examine and weigh all the documentary probative elements forwarded by the Commission, the representatives and the State at different procedural opportunities and as helpful evidence requested by the Court and its President, as well as the testimonial and expert evidence given before the Court during the public hearing, all of which comprise the body of evidence in this case. To this end, the Court will respect the principles of sound criticism within the applicable legal framework. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 35. The documentary evidence submitted by the Commission, the representatives and the State included testimonial statements and expert reports made before public notary (affidavits) and sworn statements (supra paras. 8, 9 and 10), as requested by the President in his order of August 6, 2004, and the Court considers it necessary to summarize them. TESTIMONIES a) Proposed by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives 3 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 62; Case of Carpio Nicolle et al.. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, para. 54; and Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 19, 2004. Series C No. 116, para. 27. 4 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 3, para. 63; Case of Molina Theissen. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C No. 108, para. 22; and Case of Herrera Ulloa. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107. para. 56. 5 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 3, para. 64; Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 3, para. 55; and Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 28.