19 lacking evidence. In addition, it alleges that the contextual submissions in which there is an attempt to establish a nexus between the Security Forces and the self-defense groups as a State policy lack evidentiary support. 101. In this respect, the Commission has established that it is appropriate to appraise the context and the history of the individual case and its impact on the determination of the truth of what 28 occurred, within the framework of its competence. 102. International jurisprudence has recognized the power of the courts to weigh the evidence 29 freely. For its part, the Inter-American Court has pointed out that the proceedings before it are not 30 subject to the same formalities as procedures of domestic law, and that the incorporation of certain elements to the body of evidence must be made paying particular regard to the circumstances of the actual case, and bearing in mind the limits laid down to respect legal certainty and the procedural 31 equalities of the parties. In addition, it has established that international human rights tribunals retain a high degree of flexibility in the evaluation of the evidence submitted to them on the relevant facts, in 32 accordance with the rules of logic and based on experience. 103. As a general practice, the Commission, in the cases before it and where relevant, makes use of information received in its visits to the States, thematic public hearings, annual reports, country and thematic reports, among other devices as a product of its monitoring function of the human rights 33 situation in accordance with its mandate established in the different Inter-American instruments. In addition, it makes use of public and widely known events as well as reports issued by organizations 34 specialized in the topic under analysis. Therefore, and based on this consistent practice, the Commission will evaluate the context and history of the events in its analysis of the present case. 104. For its part, the State alleges that the statement of the witness Bernardo Vivas Mosquera submitted by the petitioners as evidence of the Security Forces' active participation in Marino López's death does not appear in the case file of the present case and was not sent for rebuttal. In this respect, it is appropriate to state that on March 6, 2009 the IACHR informed the State that in its 2001 visit it received various information on the situation of human rights in Colombia pursuant to its monitoring function, and that it did not take testimony in the framework of individual cases, and did not prepare transcripts. As a result, the information relevant to the claim was that submitted by the petitioners in the context of the individual case. The record of the case shows that the evidence referred to by the State as not present in the Commission's case file was indeed sent to the State in the context of the proceedings in a 28 IACHR Report No. 62/08 Manuel Cepeda Vargas, July 25, 2008, paras. 70 and 71. 29 ICJ. Corfu Channel Case, Merits Judgment. Reports 1949, paras. 29-30 and Case of Nicaragua v. United States of America, Merits Judgment, Reports 1986, paras. 59-60. 30 I/A Court H.R. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 127-128. 31 Cf. I/A Court H.R. Case of Maritza Urrutia, Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 48; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Interpretation of Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 26, 2003. Series C No. 102, para. 28; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 120; and Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 42; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 41. 32 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia, Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 48; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Interpretation of Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 26, 2003. Series C No. 102, para. 42; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 120; and Case of Bulacio, Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 42; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 41. 33 For instance see IACHR Report No. 62/08 Manuel Cepeda Vargas, July 25, 2008, footnotes 102, 107, 108; Report No. 22/08 Dos Erres Massacre, March 14, 2008, footnotes 50, 72, 78; Report No. 46/10 Case of the Río Negro Community of the Maya people and its members, July 14, 2010, footnotes 2, 12, 14, 22, 26, 37, 51 and Report No. 62/06 Case of Yvon Neptune, July 20, 2006, paras. 62 and 63. 34 For instance see IACHR Report Nº 22/08 Dos Erres Massacre, March 14, 2008, footnotes 381, 382, 406, 412; Report No. 46/10 Case of the Río Negro Community of the Maya people and its members, July 14, 2010, footnotes 272, 367 and Report No. 62/06 Case of Yvon Neptune, July 20, 2006, paras. 88.