minimum wage of an office worker in Bolivia from 1972 to 1981, issued by the appropriate competent authority, as additional evidence. 28. On November 6, 2001, CEJIL, representing the victim and his next of kin, forwarded a brief in which it requested an extension until November 23, 2001, to present the information requested by the Secretariat regarding the questions that the Court had asked the State during the public hearing on reparations (supra para. 20). An extension was granted until November 21, 2001. 29. On November 15, 2001, the Commission forwarded a brief in which it referred to the information on the questions that the Court had asked the State during the public hearing on reparations (supra para. 20). In this brief, it stated that “considering the questions raised by the Honorable Court refer to Bolivia’s domestic legislation, the Commission understands that it is primarily the State who should respond to such questions” and requested that “it establish a period for making observations on the State’s reply, once this had been presented.” It also made “some comments on [… the] obligation [of Bolivia] to diligently investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the illegal detention, torture and forced disappearance of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza, […] in view of the most recent actions of the State’s domestic jurisdictional organs.” 30. On November 22, 2001, CEJIL referred to the issues raised concerning the questions that the Court had asked the State during the public hearing on reparations (supra para. 20). 31. On November 27, 2001, the State presented a brief with which it attached a copy of constitutional judgment Nº 1190/01-R issued by the Constitutional Court of Bolivia on November 12, 2001. 32. On November 28, 2001, CEJIL presented two briefs to which it attached a copy of the press communiqué of the Public Relations Unit of the Constitutional Court of Bolivia of November 20, 2001, with regard to judgment Nº 1190/01-R issued by that court on November 12, 2001, and some documents relating to the questions that the Court had asked the State during the public hearing on reparations (supra para. 20). IV EVIDENCE 33. Before examining the evidence received, in this chapter the Court will define the general criteria that it uses to evaluate evidence and will make some observations that are applicable to this specific case, most of which have been developed previously in the jurisprudence of this Court. 34. Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure establishes that: [i]tems of evidence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if previous notification thereof is contained in the application and in the reply thereto and, when appropriate, in the document setting out the preliminary objections and in the answer thereto. Should any of the parties allege force majeure, serious impediment or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for producing an item of evidence, the 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.