9 27. In accordance with the above-mentioned provisions, the Court considers that there are three procedural moments or stages, duly defined in the norms, of proceedings before the Court: a) the written stage, which is composed of the brief with the application and its attachments submitted by the Commission; the brief with the answer to the application and its attachments presented by the State, and the brief with requests, arguments and evidence presented by the representatives of the victims. Also, any briefs that are added at the initiative of the Court or of the parties, when sworn statements from witnesses and expert witnesses have been requested, to be assessed as documentary evidence;13 b) the oral stage includes the public hearing, during which the judges, who attend it, hear the witnesses and expert witnesses offered by the parties, and also the final arguments of the latter; and c) the deliberation and delivery of judgment stage, when the Court meets to examine the arguments of the parties and the probative material contributed by them at the different stages of the proceedings (oral and written stages) in order to deliver a judgment. 28. According to the provisions of Article 25 of the Statute and Articles 6 and 14(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court is sovereign to decide the best way of gathering evidence, according to the characteristics of each case and to the principles of procedural economy and legal certainty, and also to determine its composition14 among the members who attend the public hearing and compose the Court when the deliberations take place.15 At times, and in exercise of its authority, 13 Cf., inter alia, Bulacio case. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 62; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, para. 55; Las Palmeras case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) Of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of 26 de noviembre de 2002. Series C No. 96, para. 30; El Caracazo case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of August 29 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 60; the “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 48; Castillo Páez case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, paras. 40 and 41; and Loayza Tamayo case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, paras. 54 a) and 57. 14 In relation to composition, there are specific norms in this regard in Article 54(3) of the American Convention, Article 5 of the Court’s Statute and Article 16(1) of the Rules of Procedure. In this respect, the Court has issued its respective interpretations, Genie Lacayo case. Order of the Court of May 18, 1995, (Art. 54(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Sistematización de las Resoluciones Procesales de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos-Compendio: agosto 1986-Junio 2001. Series F, No. 1, Tome II, fourth and sixth considering paragraphs, pp. 555-568; and Neira Alegría et al. case. Order of the Court of June 29, 1992, (Art. 54(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Sistematización de las Resoluciones Procesales de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos-Compendio: agosto 1986-Junio 2001. Series F, No. 1, Tome II, paras. 9, 10, 11 and 18, pp. 569-590. 15 Cf., inter alia, Cantos case. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97; Las Palmeras case. Reparacione, supra note 13; Bámaca Velásquez case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91; Las Palmeras case. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90; Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 89; Cantoral Benavides case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88; Cesti Hurtado case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 31, 2001. Series C No. 78; the “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.), Reparations, supra note 13; The White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76; the Constitutional Court case. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71; Bámaca Velásquez case. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70; Durand and Ugarte case. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68; Trujillo Oroza case. Judgment of January 26, 2000. Series C No. 64; Cesti Hurtado case. Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 56; the White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37; and Genie Lacayo case. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30.