16 law, as it deems that international courts have the authority to appraise and assess evidence based on the rules of competent analysis, and has always avoided rigidly setting the quantum of evidence required to reach a decision.7 This criterion is especially valid with respect to international human rights courts, which enjoy substantial flexibility in the assessment of evidence submitted to them regarding the respective facts, to establish the international responsibility of a State, in accordance with the rules of logic and based on experience.8 43. Based on the above, the Court will now examine and assess the body of evidence in the instant case, following the rules of competent analysis and within the applicable legal framework. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 44. When it filed its application, the Commission included as evidence 32 annexes with that same number of documents (supra 1 y 12).9 45. The State attached two annexes to its brief replying to the application (supra 16), which were the complete records of two cases processed under domestic jurisdiction.10 On September 20, 2001 the State also submitted a certified document issued by the court intervening in the domestic criminal case, stating that it did not have better copies of the records contributed as annexes in the reply to the application.11 46. In its reply (supra 17), the Commission submitted two annexes with that same number of documents.12 47. four The State attached four annexes to its April 29, 2002 brief, and these were case records of domestic proceedings, and made observations on 7 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 4, para. 30; “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 4, para. 65; and Cantos Case, supra note 6, para. 27. 8 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 4, para. 30; “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 4, para. 65; and Cantos Case, supra note 6, para. 27. 9 Cf., Annexes 1 to 32 of the application brief filed before the Inter-American Commission on January 24, 2001 are fastened with rings in separate volumes of the main file at the Secretariat of the Court. 10 Cf., volumes 1 to 14 of case file No. 2,018 entitled “ESPOSITO, Miguel Ángel s/privación ilegal de la libertad calificada y reiterada”, fastened with rings in separate volumes of the main file at the Secretariat of the Court, with 2717 sheets; and single volume of the “incidente de nulidad en trámite ante el Juzgado Nacional de Primera Instancia en lo Criminal de Instrucción nº 48, Secretaría de Sentencia nº 206 (Ex Juzgado de Sentencia letra W),” fastened with rings in a separate volume of the main file located at the Secretariat of the Court, with 164 sheets. 11 Cf., Sheet 293 of the main file at the Secretariat of the Court entitled “Caso Bulacio. Fondo. Tomo II”. 12 Cf., Annexes 1 and 2 of the rejoinder filed by the Commission on July 18, 2001, sheets 345 and 346 of the main file at the Secretariat of the Court entitled “Caso Bulacio. Fondo. Tomo II”.