sixth serach in the premises of a place known as “El Espolón”. The remains recovered in both of these search parties were examined and, on the basis of these analyses, it was also concluded that there was no connection with the profiles provided by the next of kin of the missing persons. 38. The State reported that genetic information and fingerprints of six next of kin of the beneficiaries of the proceedings were cross-checked with all of the unidentified human remains in the State of Chihuahua, which indicated that they did not match the remains in the State's custody. Likewise, in view of the queries of the next of kin and representatives of the alleged victims, a meeting was held with some of them with the Department of Expert Services of the State of Chihuahua to explain onsite the techniques and processes used to assemble the genetic profiles. Regarding this, the State reported that, between December 2014 and February 2015, various States of the Federation reported that, after comparing the genetic samples of the next of kin of the missing persons with their databases, but the results were negative. 39. The State said that, on March 14, 2014, those samples of non-biological evidence located in various parts of Chihuahua were put on display for the next of kin and representatives; however, the next of kin did not recognize any piece of evidence displayed. 40. The State also reported that, in the framework of the provisional measures filed with the Inter-American Court, it has granted a series of measures for the education, housing, health, and pensions of the nuclear families of the victims of the case. 41. Regarding the protection measures for the next of kin, the State reported that, on May 26, 27, and 28, 2014, technical visits were made by specialized staff to assess the special conditions of each one of the beneficiaries and their environment. On the basis of said visits, in July 2014, a proposal for security measures was sent to the beneficiaries, and three of them accepted the proposed measures, which have been installed and include infrastructure measures that enhance their security and reduce their vulnerability to situations of risk. One of the beneficiaries also indicated that she turned down the protection measures because she felt that they would put her in a situation of greater vulnerability. Two other beneficiaries requested different protection measures on the basis of their mobility and employment needs, as a result of which the State sent them a new proposal, which continues to be appraised by the beneficiaries. 42. The State explained that the General Prosecution Service of the State of Chihuahua, via its Specialized Unit for the Investigation of Crimes against Physical Integrity and Damages (Unidad Especializada en Investigación en Delitos contra la Integridad Física y Daños) has started an investigation for the purpose of clarifying the facts in connection with the threats received by the next of kin of the missing persons. IV. PROVEN FACTS 43. The Commission deems important to recall that the case law of the Inter-American System has indicated that the criteria for assessing evidence are less rigid than under domestic legal systems and has stated that it can “assess the evidence freely.”8 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 of a State and that, despite this, is able to create confidence in the truth of the facts have been alleged.”9 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.”10 8 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. 9 10 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.