Discrimination against Women form part.252 Specifically, the Convention of Belem do Pará defines violence against women as “any act or conduct, based on gender, which causes death or physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, whether in the public or the private sphere.”253 179. Also, based on this corpus juris, the Court has found that violence against women is a form of discrimination254 that gravely affects the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms on equal footing with men.255 Among other definitions, the Court has taken into account the position of the CEDAW that discrimination against women “includes gender-based violence, that is, violence that it directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately.”256 180. In that framework, the Court has highlighted that violence against women constitutes not only a human rights violation but “an offense against human dignity and a manifestation of the historically unequal power relations between women and men,” that “pervades every sector of society, regardless of class, race, or ethnic group, income, culture, level of education, age or religion, and strikes at its very foundation.”257 181. Loaiza López. 1.2.2. Next, the Commission will assess the available evidence about what happened to Linda Weighing of available evidence and analysis of what happened to Linda Loaiza López 182. Inter-American case law has repeatedly found that in the realm of international human rights law, authority to weigh the body of evidence should not be subject to weighted evidence rules. Instead, international institutions have significant flexibility in how they assess the evidence brought before them on the pertinent facts, in accordance with rules of logic and based on experience.258 It is also found that “it is legitimate to use circumstantial evidence, indications, and presumptions as grounds for a judgment, provided that consistent conclusions with regard to the facts can be inferred from them.”259 252 Inter-American Court. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 225. 253 Article 1 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 254 See: Inter-American Court, Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 221; Inter-American Court. Véliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 207; Inter-American Court, Case of Penal Miguel Castro Castro v. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 303. 255 Inter-American Court. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 130; and Inter-American Court. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 395 citing: Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation 19 Violence against Women, 11th period of sessions, 1992, UN Doc. HRI\GEN\1\Rev.1 at 84 (1994), paras. 1 and 6. 256 See: Inter-American Court, Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 221; Inter-American Court. Case of Véliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 207; and Inter-American Court, Case of Penal Miguel Castro Castro v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 303. 257 Inter-American Court. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 118, citing the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication Of Violence against Women. Preamble. 258 Inter-American Court, Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 184; and Inter-American Court, Case of Anzulado Castro v. Peru, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 29, and Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 51. 259 Inter-American Court, Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 306; and Inter-American Court, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 130.