6 17. The State submitted its brief containing its conclusions on the matter of reparations and costs on October 9, 2001. 18. The Commission submitted its brief of conclusions on reparations and costs in the instant case on November 1, 2001. 19. The victim’s representatives tendered their conclusions on reparations and costs on November 2, 2001. IV EVIDENCE 20. Based on the provisions of articles 43 and 44 of the Rules of Procedure, before examining the evidence tendered the Court has a number of observations that apply to this specific case, most of which have been developed in this Court’s own case law. 21. According to the consistent practice of the Court, during the reparations phase, at the first occasion granted to the parties to make a written statement the parties must indicate the evidence that they will offer. Further, in exercise of the discretionary authorities it is given under Article 44 of its Rules of Procedure, the Court may request from the parties any additional evidence it considers helpful, although the parties are not to construe such request as an opportunity to elaborate upon or add to their allegations or tender new evidence on reparations, unless the Court so authorizes.2 22. The Court has previously held that its proceedings are not subject to the same formalities that must be followed in domestic courts and that when adding certain elements to the body of evidence, particular attention must be paid to the circumstances of the specific case and the limits imposed by respect for legal certainty and the equality of the parties. 3 23. This practice applies as well to the briefs in which the victim’s representatives or, when applicable, his/her next of kin, and the Inter-American Commission formulate the reparations being sought. It also applies to the State’s reply brief. These are the principal documents at the reparations phase and are, on the whole, subject to the same formalities as those followed in the brief tendering evidence. Based on this, the Court will examine and evaluate all elements in the body of evidence, according to the principle of sound judicial discretion,4 within the legal framework of the case sub judice. 2 Cf. Cesti Hurtado Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 31, 2001. Series C No. 78, paragraph 20; The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, paragraph 39; and The “White Van” Case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, paragraph 50. 3 Cf. The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, paragraph. 89; Cesti Hurtado Case. Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 21; and The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 40. 4 Cf. Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case, supra note 3, paragraphs 90 and 91; Cesti Hurtado Case. Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph. 23; and The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 42.