could torture or kill him. On the contrary, it indicated that the statement given by the owner of ”Los Manolos” Hotel recounts that she saw Walter Munárriz Escobar resting on the bench inside the police station and, upon recognizing him, decided not to press charges and offered to take him home. The State claimed that Walter Munárriz Escobar remained at the police station on his own volition, and showed signs of being inebriated. 25. The State reported that Walter Munárriz was only at the Lircay police station for a short time, and that he left there at approximately 5 a.m. on the same day, and was seen by two witnesses who fully recognized him and reported that he was walking in the area of the Jr. Olimpico towards the Bellavista neighborhood, and showed visible symptoms of inebriation. 26. The State reported that the police personnel involved never denied either their participation in the events early that morning or their identity. It contended that the version provided by the witness, Marcos Leonidas Sierra Tueros, regarding the alleged abusive treatment of which Walter Munárriz was a victim at the police station was false, and was prompted by a member of the family of the alleged victim – who was a relative of the judge hearing his criminal case- in an attempt to incriminate the police officers in exchange for assistance in a criminal proceeding in which he was involved. 27. With regard to the obligation to adopt the provisions of domestic law, the State did not submit any pleadings. On the contrary, in Report No. 004-2011-FSPNC-MP-FN of April 4, 2011, the Coordinating Prosecutor of the Superior National Criminal Prosecution Office and the Supraprovincial Criminal Prosecution Offices pointed out that “the terms of Article 320 of the Criminal Code are not in line with the classification of the Crime of Forced Disappearance according to the aforesaid international standards, since the criminal classification in our domestic legal system is restrictive. 3 28. In general, the State contended that it not have responsibility, either in conjunction with the alleged forced disappearance of Walter Munárriz Escobar, or with regard to Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, considered together with Articles 1.1 and 2 of that instrument. IV. PROVEN FACTS 29. The Commission considers that it is relevant to recall that according to inter-American jurisprudence, the standards of proof are less rigid than in domestic legal systems and that it is possible “to freely evaluate evidence.”4 The Inter-American Court has found that “a standard of proof that takes into account the seriousness of the international responsibility of the State should be used, and, that nonetheless, said standard should be capable of creating the conviction of the truth of the alleged facts.”5 The Court has noted that it is “legitimate to use circumstantial evidence, and indications and presumptions to support a judgment provided conclusions consistent with the facts can be inferred from them.”6 30. The Commission points out that in cases alleging a possible forced disappearance, it is the practice of the organs of the inter-American system to pay particular attention to the nature of this violation, the purpose of which is to erase any material trace of a crime, and is usually followed by a series of acts and omissions on the part of state agents seeking to cover up the event through manoeuvers beginning with denial of deprivation of liberty, continuing with disinformation or false information on the whereabouts or fate of the 3 Annex 1. Report N° 004-2011-FSPNC-MP-FN of April 4, 2011, submitted as an annex to the State’s Memorandum No. 7-5M/785 of December 5, 2011. 4 and 128. Inter-American Court. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez Vs. Honduras. Merits, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C No. 4, paras. 127 5 Inter-American Court, Case of González Medina and family vs. Dominican Republic , Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012, Series C No. 240, para. 132. 6 Inter-American Court. Case of González Medina and family vs. Dominican Republic, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012, Series C No. 240, para. 134. Citing: Case of Dos Errees Massacre Vs. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009, Series C No. 21, para. 197. 5