27 119. 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 set forth in Article 44 of its Rules of Procedure, 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.10 120. 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.11 In addition, the Court has taken into account that international case law, deeming that international courts have the authority to appraise and assess evidence based on the rules of competent analysis, has always avoided rigidly determining the quantum of evidence necessary as the basis for a ruling.12 This criterion is especially valid with respect to international human rights courts, which –to establish the international responsibility of a State for violation of the rights of a person- have ample flexibility in assessment of the evidence submitted to them regarding the pertinent facts, in accordance with the rules of logic and based on experience.13 121. Based on the above, the Court will now examine and assess the set of items that constitute the body of evidence in the case, following the rules of competent analysis, within the relevant legal framework. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 122. When it submitted its application, the Commission attached as evidence 52 annexes14 (supra para. 18). Subsequently, the Commission submitted copies of other documents, such as press release No. 032-2003 2003 of the Ministry of Foreign 10 Cf. Bulacio Case, supra note 9, para. 41; Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 9, para. 29; and Las Palmeras Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 26, 2002. Series C No. 96, para. 17. 11 Cf. Bulacio Case, supra note 9, para. 42; Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 9, para. 30; and “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 9, para. 65. 12 Cf. Bulacio Case, supra note 9, para. 42; Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 9, para. 30; and “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 9, para. 65. 13 Cf. Bulacio Case, supra note 9, para. 42; Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 9, para. 30; and “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 9, para. 65. 14 Cf. annexes 1 to 52.5 of the application filed by the Commission on June 29, 2001 (leaves 1 to 1259 of the file with annexes to the application). The Commission also submitted 6 audiocassettes and one videocassette containing interviews with Noel de Jesús Beteta Álvarez. Subsequently, the Commission submitted other documents. Cf. leaves 165 to 167 of volume I of the dossier on the merits and possible reparations; leaves 800 to 803 and 852 to 870 of volume IV of the dossier on the merits and possible reparations; and leaves 8420 to 8752 of the file with annexes submitted by the Commission with its brief of November 5, 2002.