5 Items of evidence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if previous notification thereof is contained in the application and in the reply 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. 19. Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure indicates that, at any stage of the case, the Court may: 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 The documents may not be published without the authorization of the Court. [...] 20. According to the consistent practice of the Court, during the reparations stage, the parties must indicate the evidence that they will offer at 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 to 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 allows. 21. The Court has previously indicated 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 parties1. In its jurisprudence, the Court has sustained that it has the authority to evaluate the evidence within the limits of sound judicial discretion; and has always avoided making a rigid determination of the amount of evidence required to support a judgment2. 22. This practice extends to the briefs in which the victim and the Inter-American Commission formulate their claims for reparations and to the State’s answering brief, 1 Cf. Ivcher Bronstein case. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 65; “The Last Temptation of Christ” case (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, paras. 49 and 51; and The Constitutional Court case. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 46. 2 Cf. Castillo Páez case. Reparations (Article 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 38; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales case. Judgment of March 15, 1989. Series C No. 6, para. 130; Godínez Cruz case. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 133; and Velásquez Rodríguez case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 127; and Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14, para. 60.