9 44. According to the practices of the Tribunal, at the beginning of each procedural stage the parties must state, on the first opportunity given to them to go on record in writing, the evidence they will offer. Also, in exercise of the discretional powers contemplated in Article 45 of its Rules of Procedures, the Court or its President may request additional evidentiary elements to the parties as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, without this turning into a new opportunity to extend or complement the allegations, unless the Tribunal allows it expressly.4 45. The Court has pointed out, with regard to the receipt and assessment of the evidence, that the proceeding followed before them is not subject to the same formalities as domestic judicial actions, and that the incorporation of certain elements into the body of evidence must be done paying special attention to the circumstances of the specific case and taking into account the limits imposed by the respect to legal security and the procedural balance of the parties. The Court has also taken into account that international jurisprudence, when it considers that international courts have the power to appraise and assess the evidence according to the rules of competent analysis, has not established a rigid determination of the quantum of the evidence necessary to substantiate a ruling. This criterion is especially valid for international human rights tribunals that have, for the effects of determining the international responsibility of a State for the violation of a person’s rights, ample powers in the assessment of the evidence presented before them regarding the relevant facts, pursuant to the rules of logic and based on experience.5 46. Based on the aforementioned, the Court will proceed to examine and assess the set of elements that make up the body of evidence of the case within the corresponding legal framework. A) Documentary Evidence 47. Among the documentary evidence presented by the parties, the Commission, and the representatives there are the sworn statements offered by the alleged victim and the expert witnesses before a notary public (affidavits), pursuant to that stated by the President in Judgment of April 28, 2005 (supra para. 23). The Tribunal considers it appropriate to summarize below the relevant parts of said statements: a) Affidavit of Mr. Fermín Ramírez, alleged victim He has been en three Criminal centers: the Granja Canadá, Sector 11 of Zone 18, and “el Infiernito”, where he is currently located. The cell he was assigned to in Sector 11 was of three by two meters, with a two and a half meter patio and a one and a half meter bathroom. This cell only had one window though which he received his food, which was of bad quality. Due to the size of the place it was not possible to exercise and he 4 Cfr. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 3, para. 32; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 3, para. 63; and Case of Molina Theissen. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C No. 108, para. 22. 5 Cfr. Case of Caesar, supra note 3, para. 42; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 3, para. 33; and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 3, para. 63.