50 those relative to the public order or of social interest, provided it is so established or defined in them. A penal law that is favourable to the offender, shall always be retroactive, even in cases of sentences applied. There are two rules in the cited Article. First, the rule that establishes the general rule of non-retroactivity of the laws, where three exceptions are established: public order laws, social interest laws, and penal laws. In jurisprudence of the year 55, the Supreme Court maintained that public order or social interest laws are those that, at a given historical moment or circumstance, are indispensable for the maintenance of the State’s economic, political or social system, and those that provide the satisfaction of a social need in a direct manner. The laws that establish sanctions may be of a penal, of a disciplinary or of any other type. If it is a public order law it may have a retroactive effect even if it applies a sanction. If it is a penal law because it defines an offence and establishes the punishment, it may not have a retroactive effect unless it is favourable to the offender. The Full Supreme Court has maintained that the Legislative Assembly does not have absolute powers to qualify when a law is or is not a public order law. An administrative action of the Cabinet Council, such as Resolution N° 10 published on February 4, 1991, which determined which actions attempted against democracy and the constitutional order, is a public action of the Government subject to constitutional control, that may be equally contested for unconstitutionality before the Supreme Court. The conduct described as “to attempt against democracy and the constitutional order,” could be assimilated into some offences described in Panamanian legislation. The Penal Code describes as an offence the failure of a public official in exercise of her or his duties to denounce an automatically punishable offence of which she or he had knowledge. VI EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE 66. Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure points out the appropriate procedural moment for the submission of the items of evidence and the admissibility thereof, to wit: Items of evidence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if previous notification thereof is contained in the application and in the reply thereto and, where appropriate, in the communication setting out the preliminary objections and in the answer thereto. Should 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 party is guaranteed the right of defense. 67. Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure empowers the Court to: 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. Invite the parties to provide any evidence at their disposal or any explanation or statement that, in its opinion, may be useful.