21 80. Before examining the evidence provided, the Court will make some observations, in light of the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure which have been developed in its case law and are applicable to this case. 81. The adversary principle, which respects the right of the parties to defend themselves, applies to matters pertaining to evidence. This principle is embodied in Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, as regards the time at which the evidence should be submitted to ensure equality between the parties.13 82. According to the Court’s practice, at the commencement of each procedural stage, the parties must indicate the evidence they will offer at the first opportunity they are given to communicate with the Court in writing. Moreover, in exercise of the discretional powers included in Article 45 of its Rules of Procedure, the Court may request the parties to provide additional probative elements as helpful evidence; and this shall not provide a new opportunity for expanding or completing the arguments or offering fresh evidence, unless the Court expressly permits it.14 83. In the matter of receiving and assessing evidence, the Court has indicated that its proceedings are not subject to the same formalities as domestic proceedings and, when incorporating certain 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 parties. Likewise, the Court has taken account of international case law; by considering that international courts have the authority to assess and evaluate the evidence according to the rules of sound criticism, it has always avoided a rigid determination of the quantum of evidence needed to support a judgment. This criterion is true for international human rights courts, which have greater latitude to assess the evidence on the pertinent facts, in accordance with the principles of logic and on the basis of experience.15 84. Based on the foregoing, the Court will now proceed to examine and weigh the documentary probative evidence forwarded by the Commission, the representatives and the State at different procedural opportunities or as helpful evidence requested by the Court and its President, as well as the expert evidence and testimony provided to the Court during the public hearing, all of which constitute the body of evidence in this case, according to the principle of sound criticism within the applicable legal framework. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 85. The Commission and the representatives forwarded authenticated statements and a report, in response to the President’s request in his Order of January 31, 2005, (supra para. 44). These statements and the report are summarized below. 13 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 40; Case of Yatama. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 106, and Case of Fermín Ramírez. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 43. 14 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón, supra note 13, para. 41; Case of Yatama, supra note 13, para. 107, and Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 13, para. 44. 15 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón, supra note 13, para. 42; Case of Yatama, supra note 13, para. 108, and Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 13, para. 45.