5 17. On May 27 and 28, 2004, respectively, the representatives of the victim and his next of kin and the Inter-American Commission filed their final written pleadings. 18. On June 11, 2004 the Secretariat, under instructions by the President, asked the Commission, the representatives of the victim and his next of kin, and the State, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure, for evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case regarding the birth certificates of the parents and siblings of the victim, the death certificate of the victim’s father, the exchange rate of Guatemalan currency with respect to the United States dollar, the life expectancy chart for Guatemala, and the rate at which the consumer price indexes in force changed from 1981 to date. 19. On June 22, 2004 the representatives of the victim and his next of kin filed the evidence requested to facilitate adjudication of the case. The Commission and the State did not file any of the evidence requested to facilitate adjudication of the case. V THE EVIDENCE 20. Before examining the evidence tendered, the Court will, in light of the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, refer to certain considerations applicable to the specific case, most of which have been developed in the jurisprudence of this Court. 21. The principle of adversarial proceedings applies to evidentiary matters. This principle respects the right of the parties to defend themselves, and it is part of the basis for Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure regarding the appropriate time to offer evidence, for there to be equality among the parties.2 22. In accordance with the usual practice of the Court, at the start of each procedural stage the parties must state, at the first time granted for them to do so in writing, the evidence they offer. Furthermore, exercising its discretional authority as set forth in Article 45 of its Rules of Procedure, the Court may ask the parties to submit additional evidentiary items as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, without this constituting a new opportunity to expand or complement the pleadings or to offer new evidence, unless the Court so allows.3 23. The Court has also stated previously, regarding receipt and evidence assessment, that the procedural system is a means to attain justice, and that the latter must not be sacrificed for the sake of mere formalities,4 while the Court must 2 See Case of Maritza Urrutia. November 27, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 103, para. 46; Case of Myrna Mack Chang. November 25, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 101, para. 118; and Case of Bulacio. September 18, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 100, para. 40. 3 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 2, para. 47; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 2, para. 119; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 2, para. 41. 4 See Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). November 26, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 102, para. 42; Case of Ivcher Bronstein. February 6, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 74, para. 67; and Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.). February 5, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 73, para. 51.