8 thereto (supra paras. 21 and 27, infra para. 42), as well as arguments by the InterAmerican Commission and by the State. 32. On April 12, 2005, the State, the Commission and the Representatives submitted their closing written arguments. 33. On August 4, 2005, the Secretariat, in pursuance of instructions by the President, requested the State to furnish certain information as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case. 34. On August 30, 2005, the State submitted documentary evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, in response to the written requirement addressed by the President on August 4, 2005 (supra para. 33). V PROVISIONAL MEASURES 35. On March 11, 2005, after hearing the statements by Wilson and Ricardo Gutiérrez-Soler (infra para. 42), as well as the closing oral Argument by the InterAmerican Commission, by the Representatives and by the State, the Court decided to order that the State adopt provisional measures in order to protect the lives, the personal integrity and the personal liberty of several individuals.2 VI EVIDENCE 36. 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 points arising from precedents established in the court itself, and applicable to the instant case. 37. 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 38. 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, exercising 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.4 2 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez-Soler. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 11, 2005, available on: www.corteidh.or.cr. 3 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 40; Case of YATAMA. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 106; and Case of Fermín Ramírez. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 43. 4 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón, see supra note 3, para. 41; Case of YATAMA, see supra note 3, para. 107; and Case of Fermín Ramírez, see supra note 3, para. 44.