15 47. Besides direct evidence, whether by testimony, documentary or by an expert, international tribunals –as well as the internal ones- are entitled to ground their decisions on circumstantial evidence, hints, and assumptions, whenever sound conclusions can be reached about the facts subjected to an examination. To this regard, the Court has stated that to exercise its jurisdictional functions, to obtain and assess the necessary evidence in the decision making process of the cases that could, under some circumstances, use both circumstantial evidence, hints, and assumptions whenever sound conclusions could be reached based on the facts. 10 48. Likewise, as pointed out by the Court, appreciation evidence criteria before an international court of human rights have a larger scope; because the international liability of a State to determine the violation of rights of a person gives the court more flexibility in evaluating relevant facts of the submitted evidence based on logic rules and experience. 11 49. The Court must evaluate documents and testimony submitted in the case. 50. Concerning the documentary evidence produced by the Commission and the State (supra para. 36 and 37), the Court acknowledges the evidence value of the documents submitted that, besides that, they were not objected or argued. 51. This Court considers the parties should provide the requested evidence to the Tribunal whether documentary, testimony, by an expert or any other category. The State and the Commission should render the legal probative elements required -as evidence for a better decision or at the request of the party- so the Tribunal can have the largest amount possible of judgment elements to be aware of the facts and to motivate further resolutions. To this regard, it is mandatory to take into account that in human rights violation the plaintiff may not have the evidence that could only be gathered with State cooperation. 12 52. In this case, on several occasions the State omitted to provide the requested documentation. Therefore, the following documents were not available: file processed on the charges of terrorism against Ugarte Rivera and Durand Ugarte; decision of July 17, 1987, besides information about fact motives and rights of said decision reflected in notices No. 544.98.INPE-CR-P from the Ministry of Justice and 15, 1989. Series C No. 6, para. 136; and Godínez Cruz Case. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5 para. 140; Velázquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 134. 10 cf. Villagrán Morales et al Case. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 69. Castillo Petruzzi et al Case, supra note 8, para. 62; Loayza Tamayo Case, supra note 8, para. 51; Paniagua Morales et al Case, supra note 8, para. 72; Blake Case. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36 paras. 47 and 49; Gangaram Panday Case. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 49; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, supra note 9. para. 133; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 9, para. 136; Velázquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 9, para. 130. 11 cf. Villagrán Morales et al Case, supra note 10, para. 72; Castillo Petruzzi et al Case, supra note 8, para. 83; Blake Case, supra note 10, para. 50; Castillo Páez Case. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34 para. 39; and Loayza Tamayo Case. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 42. 12 cf. Neira Alegría et al Case. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para.65; Gangaram Panday Case, supra note 10, para. 49; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 9, paras. 141 and 142; and Velázquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 9, paras. 135 and 136.