8 law, deeming that international courts have the authority to assess evidence according to the rules of competent analysis, has always avoided rigidly establishing the quantum of evidence necessary as the basis for a judgment.7 This criterion is especially valid regarding to international human rights courts, which enjoy broad flexibility in assessing the evidence tendered before them regarding the pertinent facts according to the rules of logic and based on experience, to establish the international responsibility of a State for violating the rights of the person.8 42. Based on the above, the Court will now examine and assess the set of components of the body of evidence of the case, following the rule of competent analysis, within the legal framework under consideration. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 43. The Inter-American Commission, the representative of the alleged victims and their next of kin and the State submitted documentary evidence when they filed the briefs containing pleadings, motions, and evidence, and the reply to the application (supra paras. 13, 18 and 19).9 44. On March 22, 2004 the representative of the alleged victims and their next of kin forwarded the statement rendered before a notary public (affidavit) by Bent Sorensen (supra para. 25),10 pursuant to the order issued by the President in his March 1, 2004 Order (supra para. 24). The Court will now summarize the significant parts of said statement. Expert opinion of Bent Sorensen, a surgeon and an expert in treatment and prevention of torture The expert headed the delegation of the United Nations Committee Against Torture (CAT) that visited Peru between August and September 1998 and he was responsible for drafting the report that was unanimously adopted by the members of the CAT. Said report found that torture, as defined in Article 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter “the UN Convention against Torture”), was practiced systematically in the country, both by the Dirección Nacional Contra el Terrorismo, (hereinafter “DINCOTE”), and by the División de Investigación Criminal, DIVINCRI. Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 120; and Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 42. 7 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, para. 48; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 120; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 42. 8 See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, para. 48; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Interpretation of Judgment, supra note 6, para. 42; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 120; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 42. 9 See file with the appendixes to the application submitted by the Inter-American Commission, volume I, appendixes 1 to 25, leaves 1 to 357 and file with appendix 26 of the application; file with the appendixes to the April 15, 2002 brief containing pleadings, motions, and evidence of the representative of the alleged victims, volumes II and III, appendixes 1 to 70, leaves 358 to 802; appendixes 1 to 9 of the April 22, 2002 brief with the reply to the application, filed by the State (file on the merits, reparations, and costs, volume II, leaves 278 to 385). 10 See evidence file with the affidavit and appendixes submitted by the representative of the alleged victims and their next of kin, documentary evidence, volume V, leaves 944 to 1070.