11 56 However, taking into account the responsibility the State has to protect human rights and in view of the nature of the instant case, the Court considers that rendering judgment determining the truth of the facts and the merits of the case, as well as their consequences, does constitute a form of reparation for Bernabé Baldeón-García and his next of kin, and at the same time, it constitutes a way to prevent that similar events may ever happen again.5 57. Consequently, the Court considers it proper to open a chapter regarding the facts involved in the instant case, to cover both the facts acknowledged by the State and the facts that have been proven through the different pieces of evidence appearing on the records of the case. 58. Likewise, notwithstanding the acknowledgment of the violations of Article 4 (Right to Life) and Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention, regarding Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the same, in detriment of Bernabé Baldeón-García (supra para. 46), the Court considers that it is essential to make some precise determinations about certain matters related to the obligations stated in said Articles. As regards the arrest of Bernabé Baldeón-García, the Court considers that the same was made without a warrant issued by a competent judge and not in flagrante delicto. IV EVIDENCE 59. Before examining the evidence offered, the Court will, in the light of the provisions set forth in Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, make some considerations that arise from the prior cases heard by the Court and which are applicable to the instant case. 60. As regards the weighing of evidence, the contradictory principle is applied, in order to respect the right of defense of the parties. Such principle is embodied in Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure regarding the time for offering the evidence, in order for the parties to stand on an equal footing.6 61. According to the usual practice of the Court, at the commencement of each procedural stage, the parties must state the evidence they intend to offer in the first written submission they make. Furthermore, exercising the discretionary powers granted by Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court or its President may request the parties to provide any additional evidence that may be used to facilitate the adjudication of the case, and this shall not be considered as a new opportunity for the parties to extend or supplement the arguments, except that the Court may expressly so allow.7 5 6 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripan Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 69. Cf. Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C N°. 144, para. 183; Case of López-Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 36; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 61. 7 Cf. Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al, supra note 6, para. 184; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 62; and Case of Blanco-Romero et al. Judgment of November 28, 2005. Series C No. 138, para. 38.