7 view of the above, it asked the State to send the documents requested no later than April 28, 2003. On May 7, 2003, the State submitted the information requested. 26. On April 4, 2003, the representatives of the alleged victim requested an extension for submission of their final written pleadings, which was granted by the President until April 10. On that date, the representatives of the alleged victim submitted their final pleadings in writing, as well as the evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case. On April 7, 2003, the State submitted its final written pleadings and the respective annexes. Finally, on April 22 the Commission reiterated its considerations regarding the facts and the law made at the public hearing (supra 23) and it endorsed the claims made by the representatives of the alleged victim with respect to reparations. V EVIDENCE 27. Before examining the evidence received, the Court will state certain considerations, in light of the provisions of Articles 43 and 44 of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to the specific case, most of which have been developed in the case law of the Court itself. 28. First of all, it is important to point out that the principle of the presence of the parties to a dispute applies to probatory matters, and this principle involves respecting the parties’ right to defense is respected. This principle is one of the foundations for Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure, regarding the time when evidence must be offered for there to be equality among the parties.3 29. According to the usual practice of the Court, at the start of each procedural stage the parties must state, at the first opportunity granted them to go on record in writing, what evidence they will offer. In addition, exercising its discretionary authority, the Court may ask the parties to submit additional evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, without this possibility granting them a new opportunity to expand or complement their pleadings or to offer new evidence, unless the Court were to allow this.4 30. The Court has also stated before, regarding receipt and assessment of the evidence, that procedures before the Court are not subject to the same formalities as in domestic judicial proceedings, and that inclusion of certain items in the body of evidence must be done paying special attention to the circumstances of the concrete case, and bearing in mind the limits defined regarding respect for legal certainty and procedural balance among the parties.5 In addition, the Court has taken into account that international case law, deeming that international courts have the 3 Cf. “Five Pensioners” Case. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 64; and Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 86. 4 Cf. Las Palmeras Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 26, 2002. Series C No. 96, para. 17; El Caracazo Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 37; and Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 64. 5 Cf. “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 3, para. 65; Cantos Case. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 27; Las Palmeras Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 18; and Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 4, para. 65.