8 tendered, so that equality among the parties may prevail.11 50. In accordance with Court practice, at the beginning of each procedural stage, the parties must specify in writing, at the first opportunity granted to do so, the evidence they will provide. Furthermore, the Court or the President of the Court, exercising the discretionary authority under Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure, may ask the parties to supply additional items as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case without thereby affording them a fresh opportunity to expand or complement their arguments, unless by express leave of the Court.22 51. The Court has also pointed out that, in taking and assessing evidence, the procedures observed before this Court are not subject to the same formalities as those required in domestic judicial actions and that admission of items into the body of evidence must be effected paying special attention to the circumstances of the specific case, and bearing in mind the limits imposed by the principles of legal certainty and procedural equality regarding the parties. The Court has taken into account that international precedents, according to which international courts are deemed to have authority to appraise and assess evidence based on the rules of a reasonable credit and weight analysis, and has always avoided rigidly setting the quantum of evidence required to reach a decision. This criterion is valid with regard to international human rights courts, which enjoy ample authority to assess the evidence submitted to them bearing on the pertinent facts, in accordance with the rules of logic and based on experience.33 52. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court will now examine and assess the documentary evidence provided in the instant case by the Commission, by the representatives and by the State, at different procedural stages or as evidence requested the President of the Court to facilitate adjudication of the case, as well as the testimonial and expert evidence rendered before the Court at the public hearing. To such end, the Court shall abide by the principle of assessment on the basis of sound judgment, within the appropriate legal context. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 53. The documentary evidence submitted by the parties, both the Commission and the representatives filed witness statements and written expert opinions sworn before a notary public (affidavits) in accordance with the Order of the President of March 18, 2005 (supra para. 23). In addition, the representatives submitted a written expert opinion from an expert witness who was summoned to render an opinion at a public 1 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 71; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 34; and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para.37. 2 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 72; Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 38; and Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 82. 3 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 73; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 1, para. 35, and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 39.