principle but have used it on a more restricted basis. 4. In the case at hand, the Court gave no grounds to justify its decision to invoke this principle, merely citing its judgments on the Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras and Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay cases, both of which applied the principle, 6 although its brief mention of these cases was not sufficient argument to justify its use of this judicial device. Such a tactic constitutes argument by authority but does not qualify as grounds. 5. The Court does have the power to invoke this principle but is not exempt from the need to justify its use or to apply it moderately and cautiously. It should be understood, first, that the law is always constrained by the facts, 7 because the task of identifying and applying the law must be performed on the basis of the corpus of facts set out in the Report on the Merits; second, the Court must proceed in such a way as not to undermine equality of arms and, more particularly, the States’ right to defense. 6. As Judge Sierra Porto stated earlier in his partially dissenting opinion in the case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, 8 this is a power that must obey certain criteria of reasonableness and relevance, as when “a human rights violation judgment of 27 August 1991, Series A No. 209, p. 19, paragraph 56; Powell and Rayner v. United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A No. 172, p. 13, paragraph 29; Scoppola v. Italy (No. 2), judgment of 17 September 2009, p. 17, paragraph 5; Celikbilek v. Turkey, judgment of 31 May 2005, paragraphs 100-105. 6 The I/H Court, unlike other international courts, has made frequent use of this power, as can be seen in its judgments on the following cases: Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, judgment of July 29, 1988; Godínez Cruz v. Honduras, judgment of January 20, 1989; Blake v. Guatemala, judgment of January 24, 1998; Durand and Ugarte v. Peru, judgment of August 16, 2000; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamín et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, judgment of June 21, 2002; Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, judgment of May 30, 1999; Cantos v. Argentina, judgment of November 28, 2002; Five Pensioners v. Peru, judgment of February 28, 2003; Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, judgment of November 25, 2003; Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, judgment of November 27, 2003; Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, judgment of July 8, 2004; Juvenile Reeducation Institute v. Paraguay, judgment of September 2, 2004; Moiwana Community v. Suriname, judgment of June 15, 2005; Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador, judgment of June 24, 2005; The Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic, judgment of September 8, 2005; Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, judgment of September 15, 2005; García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru, judgment of November 25, 2005; Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, judgment of March 29, 2006; Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, judgment of July 1, 2006; Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, judgment of July 4, 2006; Bueno Alves v. Argentina, judgment of May 11, 2007; Kimel v. Argentina, judgment of May 2, 2008; Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, judgment of August 12, 2008; Bayarri v. Argentina, judgment of October 30, 2008; González et al. (“Campo Algodonero”) v. Mexico, request to expand the number of alleged victims and refusal to submit documentary evidence, January 19, 2009; Escher et al. v. Brazil, judgment of July 6, 2009; Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, judgment of November 20, 2009; Vélez Loor v. Panama, judgment of November 23, 2010; Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, judgment of May 19, 2011; Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, judgment of August 31, 2011; Grande v. Argentina, judgment of August 31, 2011; Furlán and family v. Argentina, judgment of August 31, 2012; Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, judgment of November 2, 2012; Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, judgment of May 21, 2013; Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, judgment of August 27, 2014; Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, judgment of August 28, 2014; Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, judgment of August 28, 2014; Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador, judgment of October 14, 2014; Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, judgment of April 17, 2015; Peasant Community of Santa Barbara v. Peru, judgment of September 1, 2015; Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, judgment of November 25, 2015; I. V. v. Bolivia, judgment of November 30, 2016; Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua, judgment of March 25, 2017; Lagos del Campo v. Peru, judgment of August 31, 2017; Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia, judgment of August 31, 2017; San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela, judgment of February 8, 2018; Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, judgment of November 28, 2018; Muelle Flores v. Peru, judgment of March 6, 2019; Rodríguez Revolorio et al. v. Guatemala, judgment of October 14, 2019; Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat Association (Our Land) v. Argentina, judgment of February 6, 2020; Hernández v. Argentina, judgment of November 22, 2019; Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru, judgment of September 28, 2021; Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, judgment of November 17, 2021; Casierra Quiñonez et al. v. Ecuador, judgment of May 11, 2022 and Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay, judgment of November 21, 2022. 7 Cf. Case of González et al. (Campo Algodonero) v. Mexico, para. 32. 8 He reiterated this view in his opinions on the cases of Rodríguez Revolorio et al. v. Guatemala and Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat Association (Our Land) v. Argentina.