27 exercise of the judicial discretion conferred upon the Court by Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure (supra para. 63), the Court may request additional evidence from the parties for the purpose of clarification, without allowing, however, an opportunity for the parties to expand upon or complement existing arguments, or to offer new evidence, unless so permitted by the Tribunal. 63 65) The Court has previously stated that its procedure relating to the admission and evaluation of evidence is not subject to the same formalities as domestic judicial procedures, and that the admission of certain pieces of evidence to the general body of evidence must be carried out with careful attention to the circumstances of the particular case, while bearing in mind the limits imposed by due respect for judicial certainty and procedural equality as between the parties. In taking into account that, according to international jurisprudence, international tribunals have the authority to evaluate and assess evidence according to the rules of "competent analysis," the Court has always avoided adopting a rigid standard for the quantum of evidence necessary to justify a decision. 64 This principle is especially applicable to international human rights tribunals, which enjoy greater flexibility in assessing the evidence presented before them, in accordance with the rules of logic and on the basis of experience, for the purpose of determining the international responsibility of a State for the violation of a person’s rights. 65 66) On the other hand, it is necessary to bear in mind that international human rights protection should not be confused with criminal justice. In cases where States appear before this Tribunal, they do not appear as defendants in a criminal action, as the Court does not impose punishments on individuals found guilty of human rights violations. The function of this Tribunal is to protect the victims, determine when their rights have been violated and order reparation of the damage caused by the States responsible for such acts. 66 Thus, [t]he sole requirement is to demonstrate that the State authorities supported or tolerated infringement of the rights recognized in the Convention. Moreover, the State's international responsibility is also at issue when it does not take the necessary steps under its domestic law to identify and, where appropriate, punish the authors of such violations […]. 67 63 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 36; I/A Court H.R., Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 14; and I/A Court H.R., Cantoral Benavides Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 21. 64 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 63, para. 37; I/A Court H.R., Cantoral Benavides Case. Reparations, supra note 63, para. 22; and I/A Court H.R., Cesti Hurtado Case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 31, 2001. Series C No. 78, para. 21. 65 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Castillo Páez Case. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 39; and I/A Court H.R., Loayza Tamayo Case. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 42. 66 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 90; I/A Court H.R., The "Panel Blanca" Case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 71; and I/A Court H.R., Suárez Rosero Case. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37. 67 I/A Court H.R., The "Street Children" Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 75; and I/A Court H.R., The "Panel Blanca" Case (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 66, para. 91.