7 39. Before turning to the analysis of the evidence received, the Court, pursuant to Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, will make reference to certain considerations developed in the jurisprudence of this Tribunal and applicable to this specific case. 40. The principle of the presence of the parties to dispute applies to evidentiary matters, and it involves respecting the parties’ right to defense. This principle is contained in Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, in what refers to the time frame in which the evidence must be submitted, in order to secure equality among the parties.2 41. According to the practices of the Tribunal, at the beginning of each procedural stage the parties must state, on the first opportunity given to them to go on record in writing, the evidence they will offer. Also, in exercise of the discretional powers contemplated in Article 45 of its Rules of Procedures, the Court or its President may request additional evidentiary elements to the parties as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, without this turning into a new opportunity to extend or complement the allegations, unless the Tribunal allows it expressly.3 42. The Court has pointed out, with regard to the receipt and assessment of the evidence, that the proceeding followed before them is not subject to the same formalities as domestic judicial actions, and that the incorporation of certain elements into 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 the respect to legal security and the procedural balance of the parties. The Court has also taken into account that international jurisprudence, when it considers that international courts have the power to appraise and asses the evidence according to the rules of competent analysis, has not established a rigid determination of the quantum of the evidence necessary to substantiate a ruling. This criterion is valid for international human rights tribunals that have ample powers in the assessment of the evidence presented before them regarding the relevant facts, pursuant to the rules of logic and on the basis of experience.4 43. Based on the aforementioned, the Court will proceed to examine and assess the documentary evidence remitted by the Commission, the representatives, and the State in the different procedural opportunities or incorporated as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, all of which makes up the body of evidence of this case. For this the Tribunal will abide by the principles of competent analysis, within the corresponding legal framework. 2 Cfr. Case of Caesar, supra note 1, para. 41; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 31; and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 63. 3 Cfr. 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 Cfr. Case of Caesar, supra note 1, para. 42; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 2, para. 33; and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 2, para. 64.