11 30. Furthermore, it is worth underscoring that, according to Articles 14 and 42 of the Rules of Procedure, minutes will be taken of all hearings that are held at the seat of the Court or away from it, and they will be accompanied by a transcription of all the statements made during the hearing. This transcription is made available to the members of the Court before it deliberates, and also to the parties so that they may correct any possible factual errors. This transcription and a recording of the entire public hearing allows the judges who so wish to review everything that occurred during the hearing. Consequently, although Judge Pacheco Gómez did not participate in the public hearing, he had detailed information about everything that happened during the hearing, through the corresponding transcriptions and recordings. 31. The State’s agent knows that the transcription of the public hearing was received by the parties so that they could correct any factual errors on April 7, 2003. 32. In the instant case, it should be pointed out that the composition specified in the first part of the judgment corresponds to the members of the Court who deliberated and decided the Juan Humberto Sánchez case on June 7, 2003, and who have also been members of this Court since the case was first submitted to it on September 8, 2001. 33. In view of the above, the Inter-American Court decides to reject, as inadmissible, the request for interpretation concerning the composition of the Court, during the public hearing and when delivering the judgment in this case. VI EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT AND THE PROVEN FACTS Arguments of the State 34. With regard to the assessment of the evidence and the proven facts, the State alleged that: a) There is little regulation concerning the assessment of the evidence in either the Rules of Procedure or the Convention, it therefore asserted that “the freedom to accept the items of evidence must be moderated by the need to weigh the probative value of each item prudently”; b) Some facts supplied by the State that “should have been added to the body of evidence were bypassed [...] and were not even ruled on.” For example, the State alleged that there had been a violation of due process of law and the State’s right to defense because certain facts set out in the different briefs, including “the post mortem injuries of the victim that the petitioners believe to be torture, [...and] the statements of the Sánchez sisters who affirmed vehemently [in the domestic proceeding] that he had been abducted by individuals from the ‘other side’ (of the border, and) that his captors were bearded, masked, (paramilitary) men and not members of the Honduras Army” were not taken into consideration by the Court; Costes c. France, Arrêt du 7 octobre 2003, para. 32; and Eur. Court H.R., Case of Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 22 July, 2003, para. 52.