15 38. Article 44 of these Rules of Procedure indicates that: The Court may, at 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 The documents may not be published without the authorization of the Court. 4.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 conduct measures in order to gather evidence. 39. Article 48 of the Rules of Procedure establishes that: 1. Any party may object to a witness before he testifies. 2. If the Court considers it necessary, it may nevertheless hear, for purposes of information, a person who is not qualified to be heard as a witness. 3. The Court shall assess the value of the testimony and of the objections made by the parties. 40. When examining the arguments of the State that are summarized above (supra 34), the Court observes that, improperly and on the grounds of a request for interpretation, the State is attempting to modify the facts that the Court declared proven (supra 15 and 16), based on the same arguments that the Court heard at the corresponding procedural moments,22 and that were examined in its deliberations when delivering judgment. 41. Since the State alleges that the judgment suffers from the omission of some aspects and failure to justify others, the Court will now make some pertinent considerations. 42. In its judgment in this case, the Court indicated the criteria that it used in order to assess the evidence.23 In this respect, the guiding principle is that justice “cannot be sacrificed for mere formalities” and, therefore, international human rights courts have greater flexibility and latitude when assessing evidence, based on the principles of logic and experience.24 When interpreting Articles 43 and 44 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court has established that documentary evidence shall be admitted if it is presented by the party at the procedural opportunity or, subsequently, when it is supervening or when the Court requests it as helpful evidence.25 22 Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, paras. 22, 23, 24, 26, 34, 37, 41, 46, 47, 51, 52, 54 and 55. 23 Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, paras. 27 to 31, 45 to 60. 24 Cf., Bulacio case, supra note 13, para. 42; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, para. 30; and the “Five Pensioners” case, supra note 20, para. 65. 25 Cf., Bulacio case, supra note 13, paras. 18, 27, 30 and 57; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, paras. 25 and 45; the “Five Pensioners” case, supra note 20, paras. 39, 30 and 84; El Caracazo case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 29; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. case, supra note 20, para. 42; Trujillo Oroza case, supra note 20, paras. 21 and 22; Bámaca Velásquez case, Reparations, supra note 15, paras. 10 and 23; the case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 20, paras. 68, 69 and 96; the “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.), Reparations, supra note 13, para. 34; the “White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.), Reparations, supra note 15, para. 42; “The Last Temptation of Christ” case (Olmedo Bustos et al.), supra note 20, paras. 30 and 37; Cantoral Benavides case, supra note 20, para. 22; Durand and Ugarte case, supra note 15, para. 31; Loayza Tamayo case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 26; Castillo Petruzzi et al. case. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52; para. 76; Blake case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights).