8 V Evidence 41. Before examining the evidence offered, the Court will, in the light of the provisions set forth in Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, make some considerations that arise from prior cases heard by the Court and which are applicable to the instant case. 42. As regards to the weighing of evidence, the contradictory principle is applied which safeguards the right of defense of the parties. Such principle is embodied in Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure regarding the time for offering the evidence, in order for the parties to stand on an equal footing.4 43. According to the usual practice of the Court, at the commencement of each procedural stage, the parties must refer to the evidence they intend to offer in the first written submission they make. Furthermore, the Court or the President of the Court, exercising the discretionary authority under Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure, may ask the parties to supply additional items as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, without thereby affording a fresh opportunity to expand or complement their arguments, unless by express leave of the Court.5 44. The Court has also pointed out that, in taking and assessing evidence, the procedures followed by this Court are not subject to the same formalities as those required in domestic judicial proceedings and that admission of certain items into the body of evidence must be effected paying special attention to the circumstances of the specific case and bearing in mind the limits set by respect for legal certainty and for the procedural equality of the parties. Furthermore, the Court has taken into account that international precedents, according to which international courts are deemed to have authority to weigh and appraise evidence based on the rules of a reasonable credit and weight analysis, and has always avoided rigidly setting the quantum of evidence necessary to reach a decision. This criterion is especially valid regarding international human rights courts, which, for the purpose of the determination of the international responsibility of a State for the violation of the human rights, are flexible in the assessment and weighing of the evidence submitted for their consideration, regarding any incumbent issues of fact, following the rules of logic and based on experience.6 45. On the basis of the aforesaid, the Court will proceed to examine and weigh the documentary evidence filed by the Commission, the representatives and the State in the different procedural stages or as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case which has been requested by the President, all of which constitutes the Cf. Case of Baldeón-García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 60; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 30; and Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 183. 4 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, para. 61; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 4, para. 31; and Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al., supra note 4, para. 184. 5 Cf. Case of Baldeó- García, supra note 4, para. 62; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 4, para. 32; and Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al., supra note 4, para. 185. 6