87 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. 13. Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure states that at any stage of the proceedings the Court may: 1. Obtain, on its 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 The documents may not be published without the authorization of the Court. [...] 14. As the Court has repeatedly pointed out, in the reparations stage the parties must state the evidence they wish to submit, when they are given the opportunity to make their written statement on said reparations, and the Court in turn can exercise is discretionary powers, when it deems it appropriate to do so, in connection with obtaining evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, without this representing a new opportunity for the parties to expand or complete their arguments or to offer other evidence on reparations, unless the Court decides to allow this.5 15. The Court has also stated repeatedly that the procedures it follows are not subject to the same formalities as those under domestic jurisdiction, and that inclusion of certain items to the body of evidence must be done paying special attention to the circumstances of the specific case and bearing in mind the limits given by respect for legal certainty and for procedural balance among the parties.6 International case law has established that courts have the power to appraise and assess evidence according to the rules of competent analysis7 and it has always 5 See the Cantoral Benavides Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). December 3, 2001 Judgment. C Series No. 89, para. 21; Cesti Hurtado Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). May 31, 2001 Judgment. C Series No. 78, para. 20; Villagrán Morales et al. Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). May 26, 2001 Judgment. C Series No. 77, para. 39; and Paniagua Morales et al. Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). May 25, 2001 Judgment. C Series No. 76, para. 50. 6 See the Cantoral Benavides Case. Reparations, supra note 5, para. 22; Cesti Hurtado Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 21; Villagrán Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 40; Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 51; Ivcher Bronstein Case. February 6, 2001 Judgment. C Series No. 74, para. 65; “The Last Temptation of Christ” Case (Olmedo Bustos et al.) February 5, 2001 Judgment. C Series No. 73, para. 49 and 51; Ricardo Baena et al. Case. February 2, 2001 Judgment. C Series No. 72, para. 71 and 76; Case of the Constitutional Court. January 31, 2001 Judgment. C Series No. 71, para. 45; Bámaca Velásquez Case. November 25, 2000 Judgment. C Series No. 70, para. 96; Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case. May 30, 1999 Judgment. C Series No. 52, para. 61; Castillo Páez Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). November 27, 1998 Judgment. C Series No. 43, para. 38; Loayza Tamayo Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). November 27, 1998 Judgment. C Series No. 42, para. 38; Paniagua Morales et al. Case. March 8, 1998 Judgment. C Series No. 37, para. 70; Certain Functions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-13/93 of July 16, 1993. A Series No. 13, para. 43; and Cayara Case, Preliminary Objections. February 3, 1993 Judgment. C Series No. 14, para. 42. 7 See Cantoral Benavides Case, Reparations supra note 5, para. 23; Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case. August 31, 2001 Judgment. C Series No. 79, para. 88; Cesti Hurtado Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 21; Villagrán Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 40; Paniagua