27 . 95. On the other hand, the representatives and the State presented documents and videos along with their corresponding briefs of final arguments. In its jurisprudence, the Tribunal has considered that even though proceedings before this Court are less formal and more flexible than the proceedings of domestic law, they do not forget to guarantee the legal certainty and procedural equality of the parties.59 In the terms of Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court considers that those documents have been presented in a time-barred manner, and therefore they will not be included in the body of evidence of this case. 96. Without detriment to the aforementioned, it is necessary to guarantee that in each case the Tribunal may be able to know the truth of the disputed facts, reason for which it has ample powers to receive the evidence it considers necessary or appropriate, guaranteeing the parties’ right to defense. Therefore, in certain cases, it may be exceptionally necessary to hear the parties’ arguments with greater amplitude, assess the evidence considered useful, relevant, or essential, and order other actions appropriate for the solution of the disputed facts. The Court observes that, along with its final written arguments, the State presented transcripts of the interviews of several of the alleged victims that had not been previously included, among which we can mention those of Messrs. Armando Amaya, Eduardo Sapene, Winston Gutiérrez, and Mrs. Luisiana Ríos before attorneys of the Public Prosecutors’ Office. As indicated, the State presented information and documents regarding the facts of the present case, along with its briefs and in response to requests for evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case. Since they were part of those investigations, and since it is considered useful and appropriate to have the maximum number possible of statements of the alleged victims, the Court includes them into the body of evidence, in the terms of Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 97. Finally, upon forwarding copy of some actions in judicial investigations and proceedings either open or processed at a domestic level, in response to a request of evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. 18), the State indicated that “in what refers to the cases that are still in their Preliminary Stage, [the Public Prosecutors’ Office] reserves for third parties the investigation records, until that stage ceases, with only the parties having access to the same.” 98. The reservation of information from people foreign to the process in the preliminary phase of criminal investigations is established in the different domestic legislations. In this case, the accused State has stated the aforementioned as grounds to not send to the Court the documents requested in relation to several domestic criminal proceedings. The mentioned restriction may result reasonable in the domestic proceedings, since the diffusion of certain information in a preliminary phase of the investigations could obstruct them or cause the people damage. However, for effects of the international jurisdiction of this Tribunal, it is the State who has control of the means necessary to clarify facts occurred in its territory60 and, therefore, its defense cannot lie on the impossibility of the petitioner to present evidence that, in many cases, cannot be obtained without the cooperation of state agents.61 Therefore, the Court considers that the State’s refusal to forward some documents cannot result in detriment to the victims, but only in damage to itself. Thus, the Tribunal 59 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala, supra note 44, para. 70; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers V. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 100, para. 58; and Case of Molina Theissen V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C No. 108, para. 23. 60 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 38, para. 136; Case of Gómez Palomino V. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgement of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 106, and Case of Yatama V. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 134. 61 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 38, para. 135; Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note 31, para. 73, and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 58, para. 154.