9 60. On November 19, 2004, Salomón Lerner Febres forwarded an amicus curiae brief. V EVIDENCE 61. Before examining the evidence provided, the Court will make some observations, in light of the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, which have been developed in its case law and are applicable to this case. 62. The adversary principle, which respects the right of the parties to defend themselves, applies to matters pertaining to evidence. This principle is embodied in Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, as regards the time at which the evidence should be submitted to ensure equality between the parties.3 63. According to the Court’s practice, at the commencement of each procedural stage, the parties must indicate the evidence they will offer at the first opportunity they are given to communicate with the Court in writing. Moreover, in exercise of the discretional powers included in Article 45 of its Rules of Procedure, the Court may request the parties to provide additional probative elements as helpful evidence; and this shall not provide a new opportunity for expanding or completing the arguments or offering fresh evidence, unless the Court expressly permits it.4 64. In the matter of receiving and weighing evidence, the Court has indicated that its proceedings are not subject to the same formalities as domestic proceedings and, when incorporating certain elements into the body of evidence, particular attention must be paid to the circumstances of the specific case and to the limits imposed by respect for legal certainty and the procedural equality of the parties.5 Likewise, the Court has taken account of international case law; by considering that international courts have the authority to assess and evaluate the evidence according to the rules of sound criticism, it has always avoided a rigid determination of the quantum of evidence needed to support a judgment.6 This criterion is true for international human rights courts, which have greater latitude to evaluate the evidence on the pertinent facts, in accordance with the principles of logic and on the basis of experience.7 65. Based on the foregoing, the Court will now proceed to examine and weigh all the elements of the body of evidence in this case, according to the principle of sound criticism within the applicable legal framework. 3 Cf. Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 66; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 63; and Case of Ricardo Canese. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 47. 4 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 56; Case of Molina Theissen. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C No. 108, para. 22; and Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 47. 5 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 3, para. 67; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 64; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 3, para. 48. 6 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 3, para. 67; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 64; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 3, para. 48. 7 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 3, para. 67; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 64; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 3, para. 48.