23 assumed when it became a State Party to the American Convention.9 The purpose of international human rights law is to provide the individual with a means of protecting internationally-recognized human rights before the State.10 102. It is a function of the Court to determine whether the State complied with the obligation to adapt its domestic laws to the Convention in order to make the rights embodied therein effective. To this end, the Court will take into consideration the arguments made by the State with regard to this fifth preliminary objection, because their purpose is to dispute the existence of the alleged violations. 103. Based on the above, the Court rejects the fifth preliminary objection, because it is not an authentic objection. * * * 104. Having rejected the five preliminary objections filed by the State, the Court will now proceed to examine the merits of the case. VI EVIDENCE 105. Before examining the evidence received, the Court will make some observations, in light of the provisions of Article 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, which are applicable to the specific case, and which have been developed in its case law. 106. The adversary principle, which respects the right of the parties to defend themselves, applies to matters pertaining to evidence. This principle is embodied in Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, as regards the time at which the evidence should be submitted to ensure equality between the parties.11 107. According to the Court’s practice, at the commencement of each procedural stage, the parties must indicate the evidence they will offer at the first opportunity they are given to communicate with the Court in writing. Moreover, in exercise of the discretional powers included in Article 45 of its Rules of Procedure, the Court or its President may request the parties to provide additional probative elements as helpful evidence; and this shall not provide a new opportunity for expanding or completing the arguments or offering fresh evidence, unless the Court expressly permits it.12 Cf. Case of Cesti Hurtado. Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 26, 1999. Series C No. 49, para. 47. 9 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 54; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 73; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 5, para. 181. 10 11 Cf. Case of Caesar. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, para. 31; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 10, para. 31; and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 62. 12 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 10, para. 32; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 11, para. 63; and Case of Molina Theissen. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C No. 108, para. 22.