18 name and address of the alleged victims, their next of kin or their duly accredited representatives, when this is possible. 86. Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure establishes that: 1. 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, when appropriate, in the document setting out the preliminary objections and in the answer thereto. […] 3. 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 parties are guaranteed the right of defense. 4. In the case of the alleged victim, his next of kin or his duly accredited representatives, the admission of evidence shall also be governed by the provisions of Articles 23, 36 and 37(5) of the Rules of Procedure. 87. Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure establishes that the Court may, any stage of the proceedings: 1. Obtain, on is 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 The documents may not be published without the authorization of the Court. 4. Commission one or more of its members to hold hearings, including preliminary hearings, either at the seat of the Court or elsewhere, for the purpose of gathering evidence. 88. In this case, the representatives have included “additional [alleged] victims of the violations of the rights alleged” by the Commission, in relation to Articles 5, 7, 19 and 21 of the Convention as well as “further [alleged] victims and other rights [allegedly] violated that were not contained in the application” in relation to Articles 6 and 22 thereof (supra paras. 18, 74 and 75). The representatives also indicated that the alleged violations of Articles 6, 7, 21 and 22 of the Convention should be considered to the detriment of those persons whose “identity is established during the proceedings” before the Court (supra paras. 18). 89. Regarding the facts that are the object of the proceedings, the Court has already established that the representatives may not allege facts distinct from those set out in the application, without detriment to describing facts that explain, clarify or reject those mentioned in the application, or that respond to the claims of the applicant.9 This does not imply in any way affecting the object of the application or violating the right to defense of the State, which has the procedural opportunities to 9 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 68; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 54; and Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 5, para. 73.