-38evidence they will tender. Furthermore, the Court or the President of the Court, exercising their 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.25 185. The Court has also pointed out before that, in taking and assessing evidence, the procedures observed before this Court are not subject to the same formalities as those required in domestic judicial actions and that admission of 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. The Court has further taken into account international precedent, according to which international courts are deemed to have authority to appraise and assess evidence based on the rules of a reasonable credit and weight analysis, and has always avoided rigidly setting the quantum of evidence required to provide the grounds for a decision. This criterion is valid regarding international human rights courts, which enjoy ample authority to assess the evidence submitted to them bearing on the pertinent facts, in accordance with the rules of logic and based on experience.26 186. Based on the above, the Court will now examine and assess the body of evidence in the instant case, which includes documentary evidence submitted by the Commission, by the Representatives and by the State, evidence requested by the Court or the President of the Court, on their own motion, to facilitate adjudication of the case, and testimonial and expert evidence rendered before the Court at the public hearing. In doing so, the Court will follow the rules of reasonable credit and weight analysis, within the applicable legal framework. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 187. Among the documentary evidence submitted by the parties, the Commission and the common intervener forwarded written testimonies and an expert opinion, in compliance with the provisions in the Order of the President of August 1, 2005 (supra para. 51). In addition, the Commission forwarded a written expert opinion from an expert witness who had been summoned to give his opinion at a public hearing (supra para. 60 and 61). Such testimonies and expert opinions are summarized below: TESTIMONIES a) Proposed by the Inter-American Commission 1. Rogelia Rosario Agüero-Laos, alleged victim 25 Cf. Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 16, para. 83; Case of Palamara-Iribarne. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 50; and Case of the “Mapiripan Massacre”, supra note 16, para 72. 26 Cf. Case of Blanco-Romero et al., supra note 24, para. 39; Case of García-Asto and RamírezRojas, supra note 16, para. 84; and Case of Gómez-Palomino, supra note 21, para. 46.