35. Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure indicates that the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings: 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 The documents may not be published without the authorization of the Court. [...] 36. According to the constant practice of the Court, during the reparations stage, the parties must indicate the evidence that they will offer on 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 allows3. 37. The Court has also 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 parties4. International jurisprudence has upheld the power of the courts to evaluate the evidence according to the rules of sound judicial discretion and has always avoided making a rigid determination of the amount of evidence required to support a judgment5. 38. Based on the foregoing, the Court will proceed to examine and evaluate all the elements that make up all the evidence in this case, according to the rule of sound judicial discretion and within the applicable legal framework. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 3 cf. Cantoral Benavides case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 89, para. 21; Cesti Hurtado case. Reparations (Article 63(1), American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 31, 2001. Series C No. 78, para. 20; and The “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations (Article 63(1), American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para 39. 4 cf. Cantoral Benavides case. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 22; Cesti Hurtado case. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 21; The “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 3, para. 40; and The “White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations (Article 63(1), American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 51. 5 cf. Cantoral Benavides case. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 23; The case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 88; and Cesti Hurtado case. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 21. Similarly, cf. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, para. 60.