7 30. According to the practice of the Court, at the outset of each procedural stage the parties must state what evidence they will offer, on the first opportunity granted to them to submit their position in writing. Furthermore, the Court or its President, exercising the discretionary authority set forth in Article 45 of its Rules of Procedure, may request additional evidence from the parties to facilitate adjudication of the case, without this constituting a new opportunity for them to expand or complement their pleadings, unless the Court explicitly authorizes this.3 31. The Court has pointed out, regarding the process of receiving and assessing the evidence, that the procedures followed before it are not subject to the same formalities as domestic legal proceedings, and that inclusion of specific items in the body of evidence must be done paying special attention to the circumstances of the specific case and taking into account the limits imposed by respect for legal certainty and for procedural balance among the parties. The Court has also taken into account that international jurisprudence, bearing in mind that international courts have the authority to assess and appraise the evidence according to the rules of competent analysis, has not rigidly established the quantum of evidence required as grounds to substantiate a decision. This criterion applies to international human rights courts, which have broad authority to appraise the evidence tendered before them regarding the pertinent facts, in accordance with the rules of logic and based on experience.4 32. Based on the above, the Court will now examine and appraise the documentary evidence submitted by the Commission, the representatives and the State at various procedural moments or as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, requested by the Court, as well as the expert opinions and testimony rendered before the Court during the public hearing, all of which constitutes the body of evidence in the instant case. For this, the Court will apply the principles of competent analysis, within the respective legal framework. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 33. The Inter-American Commission submitted documentary evidence when it filed the application (supra para. 10).5 34. The representatives submitted several annexes as documentary evidence, together with the brief with pleadings and motions and the final written pleadings (supra paras. 11 and 24).6 3 See Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 2, para. 32; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 2, para. 63; and Case of Molina Theissen. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C No. 108, para. 22. 4 See Case of Caesar, supra note 2, para. 42; Case of the Serrano Cruz sisters, supra note 2, para. 33, and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 2, para. 64. 5 6 See file with appendixes to the application, appendixes 1 to 37, volumes 1 to 1552. See file with appendixes to the brief with pleadings and motions, appendixes 1 to 10, volumes 1555 to 3568 and file with appendixes to the final written pleadings, volumes 480 to 783.