13 brief. For that reason they will not be added to the body of evidence in the instant Case. 50. The Court is compelled to point out that certain discrepancies noted detract from the value of these tables, even as reference aids. For example, there are mathematical errors in the figures shown on some of the chart (cf. list of expenses for the education of Paul Zambrano-Loayza, Appendix V; chart of expenses for the education of Gisselle Zambrano-Loayza, Appendix VI; chart of toiletries and articles of personal hygiene delivered monthly to the Chorrillos Maximum Security Women’s Prison for María Elena Loayza, Appendix XVI; chart of one-time outlays for materials that María Elena Loayza used for the handicrafts she made at the Chorrillos Maximum Security Women’s Prison, Appendix XVIII; chart of medications prescribed for María Elena Loayza-Tamayo while she was at the Chorrillos Maximum Security Women’s Prison, Appendix XIX; chart of expenses for photocopying documents that Carolina Loayza-Tamayo, the victim’s sister and attorney, presented on the victim’s behalf in various proceedings, Appendix XXX; chart of expenses for international telephone calls made from the telephone installed in the home of the victim’s attorney and sister, Appendix XXXI; list of expenses for mailed correspondence, Appendix XXXII; chart of faxtransmission expenses for sending the petition and application in the Loayza Tamayo Case, Appendix XXXIII); moreover, when the figures given in the appendices and in the body of the reparations brief are compared, it is found that the amounts claimed for the same items are expressed in a given number of soles in the chart, but in an equal number of United States dollars in the body of the reparations brief, as if there were parity between the two currencies (cf. chart of monthly expenses for groceries vs. the brief; chart of expenses for toiletries and articles of personal hygiene vs. the brief; chart illustrating annual expenditures for clothing vs. the brief). The Court will take these factors into account when it examines the corresponding forms of reparations. 51. The other documents challenged by the State were receipts for assorted purchases of materials, medications, wearing apparel, photocopies and correspondence (cf. appendices XV, XVIII, XIX (slips no. 09119, 4275, 09402 and 117748), XX, XXX, XXXII and XXXIII). The Court notes that these documents did not name the author of the respective transaction, which makes them less credible. Consequently, their specific weight as evidence will be gauged by a standard often invoked by the Court, to the effect that: [i]n the exercise of its judicial functions and when ascertaining and weighing the evidence necessary to decide the cases before it, the Court may, in certain circumstances, make use of both circumstantial evidence and indications or presumptions on which to base its pronouncements when they lead to consistent conclusions as regards the facts of the case… (Gangaram Panday Case, Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 49). * * * 52. As its documentary evidence, the State tendered a court ruling, three official memoranda and four articles (cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court published in the May 9, 1997 issue of “El Peruano” official journal, whereby “the case alleging the unconstitutionality of several articles of Laws Nos. 26,479 and 26,492 is dismissed”; official memorandum No. 1009-97-IN-011204000000, to Mr. Luis Reyes Morales, Chairman of the Committee Evaluating the Ley de Arrepentimiento [Repentance Law], dated October 29,