15 VII EVIDENCE 81. Before examining the evidence tendered, the Court will state, in light of the provisions set forth in Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, a number of points arising from Court precedents and applicable to the instant case. 82. Evidence is governed by the adversary principle, which embodies due respect for the parties’ right to defense. This principle underlies Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, inasmuch as it refers to the procedural stage at which evidence must be tendered so that equality among the parties may prevail.10 83. In accordance with the usual Court practice, at the beginning of each procedural stage, the parties must state the evidence they intend to offer in the first written brief they submit. Furthermore, the Court or the President of the Court, exercising the discretionary authority under Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure, may ask the parties to supply additional items, as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case, without thereby affording a fresh opportunity to expand or complement their arguments, unless by express leave of the Court.11 84. The Court has also pointed out before that, in admitting and assessing evidence, the procedures observed before this Court are not subject to the same formalities as those required in domestic judicial actions and that the admission of certain items into the body of evidence must be effected paying special attention to the circumstances of the specific case, and bearing in mind the limits set by respect for legal certainty and for procedural equality for the parties. The Court has further taken into account international precedents, according to which international courts are deemed to have authority to appraise and assess evidence based on the rules of reasonable credit and weight analysis, and has always avoided rigidly setting the quantum of evidence required to reach a decision. This criterion is particularly valid with respect to international human rights courts, which enjoy ample authority when determining the international responsibility of a State for the violation of human rights, to assess the evidence submitted for their consideration concerning the pertinent facts, in accordance with the rules of logic and based on experience.12 85. Based on the foregoing, the Court shall now examine and assess the documentary evidence submitted by the Commission, the representatives, and the State, at different procedural stages, or the evidence requested by the President in order to facilitate the adjudication of the case, as well as the testimonial evidence submitted to the Court during the public hearing, which altogether constitutes the body of evidence in the instant case. In doing so, the Court will follow the rules of reasonable credit and weight analysis, within the applicable legal framework. 10 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 71; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 34; and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 6, para. 37. 11 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 72; Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 6, para. 38; and Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico, supra note 1, para. 82. 12 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 73; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 10, para. 35; and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 6, para. 39.