10 parties allege force majeure, serious impediment or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for producing an item of evidence, the Court may, in that particular instance, admit such evidence at a time other than those indicated above, provided that the opposing parties are guaranteed the right of defense. 49. Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure indicates that, at any stage of the proceeding, the Court may: 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 The documents may not be published without the authorization of the Court. [...] 50. According to the consistent practice of the Court, during the reparations stage, the parties must indicate the evidence that they will offer at the first occasion granted to them to make a written statement. Moreover, the exercise of the Court’s discretional powers, stipulated in Article 44 of its Rules of Procedure, allows it to request the parties to provide additional elements of evidence to help it make a more informed decision; however, this does not grant the parties another opportunity to expand or complete their arguments or offer new evidence on reparations, unless the Court so allows. 51. The Court has indicated previously that the proceedings before it are not subject to the same formalities as domestic proceedings and that, when incorporating determined elements into the body of evidence, particular attention must be paid to the circumstances of the specific case and to the limits imposed by International respect for legal certainty and the equality of the parties2. jurisprudence has upheld the power of the courts to evaluate the evidence within the 2 Cf. Ivcher Bronstein case. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C. No. 74, para. 65; “The Last Temptation of Christ” case (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, paras. 49 and 51; Baena Ricardo et al. case. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C. No. 72, paras. 71 and 76; The Constitutional Court case. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 45; Bámaca Velásquez case. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 96; Castillo Petruzzi et al. case. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 61; Castillo Páez case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 38; Loayza Tamayo case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, para. 38;. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 70; Certain Attributes of Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Articles 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-13/93 of July 16, 1993. Series A No. 13, para. 43; and Cayara case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14, para. 42.