9 49. The Commission will examine the arguments and evidence supplied by the parties and the information obtained during the hearings and in loco observations. It may also take into account other 7 information that is a matter of public knowledge. 50. The Commission believes certain clarifications need to be made regarding the standard of evidence in the present case. The Commission observes that the facts are properly supported by the victims’ statements, the existing documentary evidence and the context that the Commission established. It also notes that while the State has contested the petitioners’ allegations, it has not provided any direct evidence to refute the information contained in the alleged victims’ statements; instead, its arguments rely on the domestic laws in force, without providing any specific information to show that the procedures provided for in those laws were duly observed in the case of the alleged victims. 51. Since its earliest case law, the Inter-American Court has held that its criteria for assessing evidence are less stringent than those established in domestic law. It has written that in order to determine the international responsibility of a State for violation of human rights, international human rights courts have greater latitude and flexibility in assessing the evidence presented to them regarding 8 the facts of any given case, based on the principles of logic and experience. 52. In addition to direct evidence, be it testimonial, expert or documentary, in the case sub examine it is particularly important that the Commission consider all the indirect evidence – 9 presumptions- that emerge from the facts and that, based on its experience, are valid and logical. Similarly, the case law of the organs of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights holds that while they are not documentary evidence strictu sensu, newspaper clippings can be taken into account when they report publicly known or notorious facts, statements by officials or the State or when 10 they corroborate the information reported in other documents or testimony taken in the proceeding. 53. The Court has also held that in cases involving highly complex facts, in which the existence of patterns or practices of massive, systematic or structural human rights violations is alleged, it is difficult to strive for a strict determination of the facts. Thus, the litigation submitted to the Court cannot be examined piecemeal or by trying to exclude those contextual elements that could inform the international judge about the historical, material, temporal and spatial circumstances in which the alleged facts occurred. Nor is it necessary to distinguish or categorize each fact alleged, because the dispute submitted can only be settled based on an assessment of all the described circumstances in light of the 11 body of evidence. 54. In the instant case, given the nature of the violations being alleged, the Commission notes that the documentation and other evidence provided to support the facts of the case are primarily in the State’s possession and control, and that some of the practices denounced would logically not be a matter of record. Given the circumstances, the Commission will take as proven those facts alleged by the 7 Rules of Procedure of the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, Article 43. 8 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paragraph 184, citing I/A Court H.R., Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006 Series C No. 154, paragraph 69. See also I/A Court H.R., Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits y Reparations (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights) of November 26, 2003. Series C No. 102, paragraph 42. 9 I/A Court H.R. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, paragraph 47; Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19,1999. Series C No. 63, paragraph 69; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 59, paragraph 62; and Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, paragraph 55. 10 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paragraph 51. 11 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, paragraph 63, citing I/A Court H.R., Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, paragraph 50.