10 final written pleadings. The alleged victims’ representatives attached a number of annexes to their brief. VI THE EVIDENCE 54. Before embarking upon its examination of the evidence received, the Court will analyze, in light of the provisions of articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Court, certain considerations that are applicable to the specific case, most of which have been addressed in the Court’s own case law. 55. To begin with, the principle of the presence of both parties to an action, which establishes respect for the parties’ right to defense, is applicable in evidentiary matters. This principle is one of the underpinnings of Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, which provides that the evidence must be received in a proceeding with both parties present, to ensure equality between them. 7 56. In keeping with the Court’s customary practice, 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 45 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 for the parties to expand upon or make additions to their pleadings or to offer new evidence, unless the Court so allows. 8 57. On the matter of receiving and assessing evidence, the Court has previously held that proceedings before this Court are not subject to the same formalities required in domestic judicial proceedings and that admission of items into evidence must be done paying special heed to the circumstances of the specific case and bearing in mind the limits set by respect for legal certainty and procedural balance between the parties. 9 The Court has also taken account of the fact that international case law holds that international courts have the authority to appraise and assess evidence based on the rules of competent analysis, and has thus always avoided rigidly determining the quantum of evidence necessary as the basis for a ruling. 10 This criterion is especially valid with respect to international human rights courts, which –to establish the international responsibility of a State for violation of an individual’s rights- have ample flexibility for assessment of the evidence submitted to them regarding the pertinent facts, in accordance with the rules of logic and based on experience. 11 7 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 46; Case of Myrna Mack-Chang. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 118; and Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 40. 8 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 7, para. 47; Myrna Mack Chang Case, supra note 7, para. 119; and Bulacio Case, supra note 7, para. 41. 9 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 7, para. 48; Myrna Mack Chang Case, supra note 7, para. 120; and Bulacio Case, supra note 7, para. 42. 10 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 7, para. 48; Myrna Mack Chang Case, supra note 7, para. 120; and Bulacio Case, supra note 7, para. 42. 11 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 7, para. 48; Myrna Mack Chang Case, supra note 7, para. 120; and Bulacio Case, supra note 7, para. 42.