16 VI EVIDENCE 66. Before examining the evidence submitted, the Court shall, in the light of the provisions set forth in Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, make some considerations that arise from prior cases heard by the Court and which are applicable to the instant case. 67. Evidence is governed by the adversary principle, which embodies due respect for the parties’ right to defense, which is one of the pillars of Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure concerning the proper time at which to tender evidence, in order to secure equality between the parties.14 68. 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 brief they submit. Furthermore, the Court or the President of the Court, exercising the discretionary authority under Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure, may ask the parties to supply additional items, as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case, without thereby affording a fresh opportunity to expand or complement their arguments, unless by express leave of the Court.15 69. The Court has pointed out before that in admitting and assessing evidence, the procedures observed before this Court are not subject to the same formalities as those required in domestic judicial actions and that the admission of certain items into the body of evidence must be made paying special attention to the circumstances of the specific case, and bearing in mind the limits set by respect for legal certainty and for the procedural equality for the parties. The Court has further taken into account international precedents, according to which international courts are deemed to have authority to appraise and assess evidence based on the rules of reasonable credit and weight analysis, and has always avoided rigidly setting the quantum of evidence required to reach a decision. This criterion is especially valid regarding international human rights courts, which, for the purpose of the determination of the international liability of a State for the violation of the rights of a person, are flexible in the assessment and weighing of the evidence submitted for their consideration regarding any relevant matters of fact, following the rules of logic and based on experience.16 70. Based on the foregoing, the Court shall now examine and assess the documentary evidence submitted by the Commission, the representatives and the State at various procedural stages (supra paras. 12, 15, 17, 19, 31, 33, 36, and 37), and the expert and testimonial evidence submitted to the Court during the public hearing, which altogether constitutes the body of evidence in the instant case. In 14 Cf. Case of Ximenes-Lopes. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 42; Case of the Ituango Massacres. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 106; and Case of Baldeón-García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 60. 15 Cf. Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 14, para. 43; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 14, para. 107; and Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 14, para. 61. 16 Cf. Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 14, para. 44; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 14, para. 108; and Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 14, para. 62.