7 36. Before examining the evidence submitted, the Court will consider certain aspects that, in light of the provisions of Articles 43 and 44 of the Rules of Procedure, are applicable to the specific case, most of which have been developed in its own case law. 37. According to the usual practice of the Court, during the reparations stage the parties must state, at the first opportunity granted for them to submit written statements, what evidence they offer. The discretionary powers of the Court, set forth in Article 44 of its Rules of Procedure, allow it to ask the parties to provide additional probatory elements, as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, without this possibility granting them a new opportunity to expand or complement their arguments or to offer new evidence on reparations, unless the Court should so decide.2 38. The Court has repeatedly stated that the procedures followed before it are not subject to the same formalities as domestic proceedings, and that inclusion of certain elements in the body of evidence must be done paying special attention to the circumstances of the specific case and bearing in mind the limits established by respect for legal certainty and procedural balance among the parties.3 39. Based on the above, the Court will examine and assess the set of elements that constitute the body of evidence in this case, following the rules of competent analysis,4 within the legal framework of the case. B) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 40. As appendices to the February 12, 2000 brief on reparations, the representatives of the victims and of the next of kin submitted copies of 770 documents (supra para. 5).5 41. As appendices to the brief with observations on the requests for reparations filed by the representatives of the victims and of the next of kin and by the Commission, the State submitted (on September 18, 2000) 139 documents and a videotape (supra para. 8).6 42. With their June 18, 2001 brief the representatives of the victims and their next of kin submitted sixteen additional documents, after having communicated with several next of kin of the victims subsequent to publication of the notices by the State (supra para. 14).7 2 Cf. Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case. June 21, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 94, para. 64; Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). February 27, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 92, para. 36; and Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). February 22, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 91, para. 14. 3 Cf. Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 2, para. 65; Reparations, supra note 2, para. 37; and Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations, supra 4 Cf. Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 2, para. 65; Reparations, supra note 2, para. 38; and Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations, supra Trujillo note 2, Trujillo note 2, Oroza Case. para. 15. Oroza Case. para. 15. 5 Cf. three files with evidence on the Caracazo case under the title “evidentiary appendices supplied by the representatives of the victims and their next of kin together with the brief on reparations,” at the Secretariat of the Court. 6 Cf. two files with evidence on the Caracazo case under the title “evidentiary appendices supplied by the State of Venezuela together with the brief on reparations,” at the Secretariat of the Court.