15. The Court deems that, given the characteristics of the instant case, taking into account the situation of the next of kin of the victims and the modes of life in the region where the facts of the case took place, the powers of attorney granted are a clear expression of the will of the persons granting them and of the other next of kin of the victims, for which reason said instruments must be considered suitable. In cases where direct representation of some of the next of kin of the victims is lacking, when the power of attorney is not included in the case file, the Court will act on the basis of the relevant information at hand. V EVIDENCE 16. Before examining the evidence received, the Court will, in light of the provisions of Articles 43 and 44 of the Rules of Procedure, state certain considerations applicable to the specific case, most of which have been developed in the case law of the Court itself. 17. According to the usual practice of the Court, during the reparations stage the parties must state what evidence they offer, at the first opportunity granted to them to make a statement in writing. The discretionary authority of the Court, set forth in Article 44 of its Rules of Procedure, allows it to request additional probatory elements, as evidence to facilitate adjudication, without this possibility granting the parties a new opportunity to expand upon or to complement their arguments or to offer new evidence on reparations, unless the Court were to allow this.4 18. The Court has repeatedly stated that inclusion of certain elements in the body of evidence must be effected 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.5 19. Based on the above, the Court will now examine and assess the set of elements that constitute the body of evidence of the case, based on the rules of competent analysis,6 within the legal framework of the case under consideration. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 20. When they filed their brief on reparations (supra para. 3), the representatives of the next of kin of the victims attached 1,387 documents as evidence.7 4 Cf. El Caracazo Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 37; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case. June 21, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 94, para. 64; and Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 36. 5 Cf. El Caracazo Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 38; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra, note 4, para. 65; and Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 37. 6 Cf. El Caracazo Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 39; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 4, para. 65; y Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 38. 7 Cf. evidence file received during the reparations phase in Las Palmeras Case, sheets 1 to 1727.