11 39. The State objected to some of the witnesses produced by the Commission, for the reasons set forth in this judgment (supra, para. 24). The Court reserved the right to assess the value of their statements at a later date. To that end, the Court repeats that the criteria used in evaluating the evidence before a human rights tribunal possesses special characteristics, since the determination of a State's international responsibility for violation of the rights of a human person bestows greater latitude in the evaluation of the testimony it has heard on the pertinent facts, in accordance with the rules of logic and on the basis of experience (Loayza Tamayo Case, Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 42). VI 40. The Court now considers the relevant facts which it deems to have been proven or not to have been disputed, from the study of the actions of the State and the InterAmerican Commission, and from the documentary, personal and expert evidence submitted in the instant case. 41. The Commission alleged that there existed, during the period in which the facts in this Case occurred, a modus operandi or a practice by the Security Forces in Peru to carry out forced dissappearances of persons considered as members of subversive groups as "Shining Path." The Commission presented documents and the expert report of Enrique Bernales-Ballesteros in the course of the public hearing held by the Court. 42. On the basis of the documentary and personal evidence, especially the expert report submitted by the Commission, the Court deems it to have been proven that during the period in question, there existed in Peru a practice on the part of the forces of law and order which consisted in the forced disappearance of persons thought to be members of subversive groups, a practice well-publicized by the press. Students were also the victims of such disappearances. In the early nineties the security forces also placed the detainees in the trunks of police cars, as had occurred in this case (1991 Annual Report by the National Human Rights Coordinator on the Human Rights Situation in Peru; Report [s of 1991 and 1993] of the [United Nations] Task Force on Forced or Involuntary Disappearances; expert report by Dr. Enrique Bernales-Ballesteros; press cuttings.) 43. The Court studied the documentary and personal evidence submitted by the parties in order to decide whether the alleged facts demonstrate that members of the police had detained Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez and whether that detention was the cause of his disappearance. In that regard, the Court considers the following facts to have been proven: a. Mr. Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez left his home on October 21, 1990 (Testimony of Cronwell Pierre Castillo-Castillo); b. on that same day the subversive group "Shining Path" detonated explosives near the "Monumento a la Mujer" in the Villa El Salvador district of Lima, Peru (Answer to the application, testimony of Joe Roberto Ruiz-Huapaya, Judge Elba Minaya-Calle, and María Elena Castro-Osorio; statement of María Esther Aguirre-Vera on the videotape enclosed as Attachment XII to the application). c. shortly after operation to detain (Statements of Joe Elba Minaya-Calle; the explosions, the Peruvian security forces organized an those responsible. During that action, a white patrol vehicle Roberto Ruiz-Huapaya, María Elena Castro-Osorio, and Judge videotape enclosed as Attachment XII to the application)