12 62. The Court has pointed out, as regards the admission and weighing of evidence, that the procedure followed in Court is not subject to the same formalities as domestic court proceedings are, and further, that the incorporation of certain elements to the body of the evidence must be made taking into account the circumstances surrounding the case and considering the limitations imposed to ensure legal certainty and procedural equality for the parties. Furthermore, the Court has taken into account that international Case Law, when considering that international courts have the power to weigh and make an assessment on the basis of sound judgment, has not established a strict determination as to the quantum of evidence that is necessary to constitute the foundation of a judgment. This criterion is specially valid regarding international human rights courts, which, for the purpose of the determination of the international responsibility of a State for the violation of the rights of a person, are flexible in the assessment and weighing of the evidence submitted for their consideration, regarding any incumbent matters of fact, following the rules of logic and based on experience.8 63. On the basis of the aforesaid, the Court will proceed to examine and weigh the documentary evidence filed by the Commission, the representatives and the State in the different procedural stages or as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case which has been requested by the President, all of which constitutes the body of evidence in the instant case. To such end, the Court shall abide by the principle of assessment on the basis of sound judgment, within the incumbent legal frame. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 64. The Commission and the representatives sent affidavits with the testimony of two witnesses and the opinion of three expert witnesses, as a response to the Order issued by the President on December 13, 2005 (supra para. 27). Such testimonies of witnesses and expert witnesses are summarized as follows: TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES 1. Crispín Baldeón-Yllaconza, son of Bernabé Baldeón-García Due to the armed conflict, he emigrated to the city of Lima where he now lives, in extreme poverty, with 7 of his 8 siblings and his mother. He is now 55 years old and has temporary jobs. His six children are also temporary workers and contribute to maintain the family home. Since 1985, when a military base was established in the district of Accomarca, the soldiers stationed there established that it would be “mandatory” to surrender, on a monthly basis, animals and other supplies to feed the soldiers stationed in the said base. This obligation was not fulfilled during the month prior to the events that occurred on September 25, 1990. The day on which his father was taken by the soldiers, he was in the city of Lima, and had been working there since two months before as a temporary worker. On September 28, 1990, three days after his father had been killed, he received a telegram from a home-town neighbor informing him about the events. 8 Cf. Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al, supra note 6, para. 185; Case of López-Álvarez, supra note 6, para. 37; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 63.