8 Court may, in that particular instance, admit such evidence at a time other than those indicated above, provided that the opposing parties are guaranteed the right of defense. 38. Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure indicates that at any stage of the case, the Court may: 1. Obtain, on is own motion, any evidence it considers helpful. In particular, it may hear as a witness, expert witness, or in any other capacity, any person whose evidence, statement or opinion it deems to be relevant. 2. Request the parties to provide any evidence within their reach or any explanation or statement that, in its opinion, may be useful. 3. Request any entity, office, organ or authority of its choice to obtain information, express an opinion, or deliver a report or pronouncement on any given point. The documents may not be published without the authorization of the Court. [...] 39. According to the consistent practice of the Court, during the reparations stage, the parties must indicate the evidence that they will offer at the first occasion granted to them to make a written statement. Moreover, the exercise of the Court’s discretional powers, stipulated in Article 44 of its Rules of Procedure, allows it to request the parties to provide additional elements of evidence to help it make a more informed decision; however, this does not grant the parties another opportunity to expand or complete their arguments or offer new evidence on reparations, unless the Court so allows1. 40. The Court has indicated previously that the proceedings before it are not subject to the same formalities as domestic proceedings and that, when incorporating determined elements into the body of evidence, particular attention must be paid to the circumstances of the specific case and to the limits imposed by respect for legal certainty and the procedural equality of the parties2. International jurisprudence has upheld the power of the courts to evaluate the evidence within the limits of sound judicial discretion and has always avoided making a rigid determination of the amount of evidence required to support a judgment3. 41. This practice extends to the briefs in which the representatives of the victims or, when applicable, their next of kin, and the Inter-American Commission formulate their claims for reparations and to the State’s answering brief, which are the principal documents at this stage and, in general, entail the same formalities with regard to the offer of evidence as the application. 1 cf. Castillo Páez case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 37. 2 cf. Ivcher Bronstein case. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 65; “The Last Temptation of Christ” case (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, paras. 49 and 51; and Baena Ricardo et al. case. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paras. 71 and 76. 3 cf. Castillo Páez case. Reparations, supra note 1, para. 38; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales case. Judgment of March 15, 1989. Series C No. 6, para. 130; Godínez Cruz case. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 133; and Velásquez Rodríguez case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 127. See also, the International Court of Justice, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14, para. 60.