8 authority to appraise and assess evidence based on the rules of competent analysis, has always avoided rigidly determining the quantum of evidence necessary as the basis for a ruling.6 This criterion is especially valid with respect to international human rights courts, which have ample flexibility in assessment of the evidence submitted to them regarding the pertinent facts, in accordance with the rules of logic and based on experience, to determine the international responsibility of a State for violation of the rights of a person.7 31. Based on the above, the Court will now examine and assess the set of items that constitute the body of evidence in the case, following the rules of competent analysis, within the relevant legal framework. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 32. When it filed its application, the Committee attached as evidence 26 annexes with 59 documents (supra 1 and 9).8 33. The representatives of the alleged victim attached 18 annexes with 25 documents to their brief of requests, pleadings and evidence (supra 15), as well as another annex with 171 documents pertaining to “legal costs and expenses incurred by the Comité de familiares de detenidos-desaparecidos de Honduras (COFADEH) in the course of processing the Juan Humberto Sánchez case.”9 34. In the brief answering the application and filing the preliminary objection, the State forwarded four annexes with six documents (supra 16), including the case files of the domestic proceedings.10 35. When they submitted their observations to the brief on preliminary objections (supra 18), the representatives of the alleged victim offered five annexes with 11 documents.11 36. Before the public hearing was held (supra 23), the Commission supplied a medical certificate for Celso Sánchez Domínguez justifying his absence as a witness in this case, and submitted a document with his sworn testimony.12 6 Cf. “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 3, para. 65; Cantos Case, supra note 5, para. 27; and Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 4, para. 65. 7 Cf. “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 3, para. 65; Cantos Case, supra note 5, para. 27; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 4, para. 65. 8 Cf. Annexes 1 to 26 of the brief filed by the Commission on September 8, 2001, leaves 117 to 318 of the main file at the Secretariat of the Court. 9 Cf. Annexes 1 to 18 of the brief with requests, pleadings and evidence filed by the representatives of the alleged victim on December 7, 2001 and the volume containing the evidence on legal costs and expenses, ring bound in separate volumes of the main file at the Secretariat of the Court. 10 Annexes 1 to 3 of the brief answering the application submitted by the State on January 11, 2002, leaves 647 to 742 of the main file at the Secretariat of the Court. Annex 4 is in a separate ringbound file of the main case file at the Secretariat of the Court. 11 Annexes 1 to 5 of the brief with observations on the preliminary objections filed by the representatives of the alleged victim on February 20, 2002, leaves 55 to 68 of the main file at the Secretariat of the Court.