8 36. Before examining the evidence received the Court will state, in the light of the provisions set forth in Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, a number of points arising from precedents established in the Court itself, and applicable to the instant case. 37. Evidence is governed by the adversary principle, which embodies due respect for the parties´ right to defense. This principle underlies Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, inasmuch as it refers to the time when evidence must be received, so that equality among the parties may prevail.1 38. In accordance with Court practice, at the beginning of each procedural stage, the parties must state, at the first opportunity granted them to do so in writing, the evidence they will tender. 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.2 39. 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 reach a decision. This criterion is specially 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 rights of a person, are flexible in the assessment and weighing of the evidence submitted for their consideration, regarding any incumbent matters of fact, following the rules of logic and based on experience.3 40. Based on the foregoing, the Court will now proceed to examine and assess the body of evidence presented in the instant case in the light of the applicable legal framework. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 1 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 71; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 34; and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 37. Cf . Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 72; Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 38; and Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 82. 2 3 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 73; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 1, para. 35; and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 39.