15 detention and death of Walter David, punishing those responsible and making reparations for the damage caused. e. The right to special protection measures in favor of minors, enshrined in Article 19 of the American Convention, which were not adopted in favor of Walter David Bulacio, as a minor. f. The general obligations of the State, set forth in Articles 1(1) and y 2 of the American Convention, regarding the rights breached to the detriment of Walter David Bulacio as well as his next of kin. VII EVIDENCE REGARDING REPARATIONS 39. Before examining the evidence received, in light of the provisions set forth in Articles 43 and 44 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court will state a number of points applicable to the specific case, most of which have been developed in the case law of this Court. 40. The principle of the presence of both parties to an action, which establishes respect for the parties’ right to defense, is applicable in probatory matters. This principle’s importance is based on Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure. The latter refers to the time when evidence must be offered, for equality among the parties to prevail.4 41. In accordance with the usual practice of the Court, at the start of each procedural stage the parties must state, at the first opportunity granted them to do so in writing, what evidence they will offer. The Court, exercising its discretionary authority under Article 44 of its Rules of Procedure, may ask the parties to supply additional probatory elements, as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, without this constituting a new opportunity to expand or complement their arguments or to offer new evidence, unless the Court decides to allow this.5 42. The Court has also pointed out before, regarding receival and assessment of evidence, that the proceedings before this Court are not subject to the same formalities required in domestic judicial actions and that admission of items into evidence must be done paying special attention to the circumstances of the specific case, and bearing in mind the limits set by respect for legal certainty and procedural balance among the parties.6 The Court has also taken into account international case 4 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case. June 7, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 99, para. 28; “Five Pensioners” Case. February 28, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 98, para. 64; Juridical status and human rights of the child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, paras. 132-133; and Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case. August 31, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 79, para. 86. 5 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 4, para. 29; Las Palmeras Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). November 26, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 96, para. 17; El Caracazo Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). August 29, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 95, para. 37; and Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case. June 21, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 94, para. 64. 6 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 4, para. 30; “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 4, para. 65; and Cantos Case. November 28, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 97, para. 27.