7 census of this Community, who also appeared in the prior census of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa2. 28. On March 13, 2006, following instructions given by the President, the Secretariat required the State to submit the comments it might deem appropriate on the supposed new matters of fact alleged by the Comission and the representatives in their respective final written arguments, concerning the alleged death of other members of the Sawhoyamaxa Community. On March 20, 2006, the State submitted its comments and stated that the allegation of new deaths had been made “without even one document supporting the alleged deaths, which virtually rendered the mention of the existence of the new matters of fact alleged irrelevant” (supra para. 25). V. Evidence 29. Before examining the evidence tendered, the Court will state, in the light of the provisions set forth in Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, a number of general points, most of which arise from precedents established in the Court itself, and applicable to the instant case. 30. 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 time when evidence must be tendered, so that equality among the parties may prevail.3 31. In accordance with Court practice, at the beginning of each procedural stage, the parties must state, at the first opportunity granted them to do so in writing, the evidence they will tender. Furthermore, the Court or the President of the Court, practicing the discretionary authority under Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure, may ask the parties to supply additional items, as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, without thereby affording a fresh opportunity to expand or complement their arguments, unless by express leave of the Court. 32. The Court has also pointed out before that, in taking 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 admission of 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 the procedural equality of the parties. The Court has further taken into account international precedent, according to which international courts are deemed to have authority to appraise and assess evidence based on the rules of a reasonable credit and weight analysis, and has always avoided rigidly setting the quantum of evidence required to reach a decision. This criterion is specially valid with respect to 2 Case of Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 1, Exhibit A). 3 Cf. Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 183; Case of López-Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 36; and Case of Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 61. 4 Cf. Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al., supra note 3, para. 184; Case of Pueblo Bello Massacre; supra note 3, para. 62; and Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 83.