47. The IACHR considers that the facts described by the petitioners in cases 11.053 and 12.225 could tend to establish violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of said instruments, as well violations of what is set forth in Articles I and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Wilfredo Terrones Silva and Néstor Rojas Media. Likewise, the Commission considers that the facts could tend to establish the violation of rights enshrined in Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of Mr. Wilfredo Terrones Silva and Mr. Néstor Rojas Medina. V. PROVEN FACTS 48. The Commission deems it relevant to recall that the jurisprudence of the Inter-American System has indicated that the criteria for appraising evidence are less rigid than those of domestic legal systems and has stated that it can “weigh the evidence freely.”7 In that respect, the Inter-American Court has pointed out that it “must apply an assessment of the evidence that takes into account the gravity of attributing international responsibility to a State and that, despite this, is able to create confidence in the truth of the facts that have been alleged.”8 The Court has indicated that “it is legitimate to use circumstantial evidence, indications and presumptions to found a judgment, provided that conclusions consistent with the facts can be inferred from them.”9 49. The Commission highlights that in cases where a possible forced disappearance is argued, the practice of the American system has taken particular account of the nature of this violation, whose purpose is to eliminate any material evidence of the crime and, generally, it is followed by a series of actions and omissions of state officials seeking to cover up the fact through maneuvers that begin with the refusal of deprivation of liberty, continue with misinformation or providing false information on the whereabouts or fate of the victim and go to the realization of ineffective investigations and diligent little, far from establishing the truth, perpetuate ignorance of what happened to the victim.10 50. In the same line, the Court has indicated When specifically dealing with a case of alleged forced disappearance, indicatory and presumptive evidence are of special importance because “this type of violation is characterized by the attempt to eliminate any element that would allow the detention, whereabouts, and fate of the victims to be determined.”11 51. Below, the IACHR shall rule about the general context in which the facts of the present case are involved, facts that have been established, and the resulting responsibility of the Peruvian State. Prior to that review, the IACHR shall refer to the historical context in which various allegations of the parties are involved and in which the principal stakeholders of the armed conflict that unfolded in Peru in the eighties and nineties took actions12. 7 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 127 and 128. I/A Court H.R., Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012, Series C No. 240, para. 132. 8 9 I/A Court H.R., Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 134. Quoting: Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 21, para. 197. 10 IACHR. Report 111/09. Case 11.324. Merits. Narciso González Medina. Dominican Republic. November 10,2009, para. 56. 11 I/A Court H.R., Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 134. 12 On the relevance of context in international criminal law, the International Criminal Court has ruled that "the provision of evidence that could help establish the overall context in which the crimes have been alleged is not only useful for understanding the evidence supporting the charges, but also very relevant and probative with respect to the contextual elements of the crimes under articles 7 and 8 of the Statute "Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Case Prosecutor vs. Germain Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui Mathiey, ICC-01 / 04-01 / 07 of 30 September 2008, para. 228, available https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc571253.pdf.