49. In light of the evidence presented, the IACHR considers that the alleged forced disappearance pf Mr. Vásquez Durand and the fact that the deeds involved have purportedly gone unpunished could constitute violations of articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations established in article 1.1 of said instrument, as well as of article I and III of the IACFDP, all to the detriment of Mr. Jorge Vásquez Durand. Likewise, the Commission considers that these deeds could constitute violations of articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations established in articles 1.1 and 2 of said instrument, to the detriment of the family members of Mr. Jorge Vásquez Durand. At the same time. the IACHR considers that the petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence to justify a possible analysis of violation of article 22 of the Convention. 50. Since the petitioners' complaints are not manifestly baseless or out of order, the Commission considers the requirements set forth in Articles 47(b) and (c) of the American Convention to be met. It likewise concludes that the petition meets the requirements for admissibility set forth in article 46 of the Convention and proceeds now to analyze the facts and merits of the case. V. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE a. Assessment of the evidence 51. With respect to the evidence, the State of Ecuador argued that "in the instant case there is no circumstantial evidence, prima facie presumption, or material or documentary evidence conducive to a sound conclusion that Jorge Vásquez was either detained or disappeared, with the support or tolerance of government authorities. That being so, there was no way the State could be held liable for facts that have never been credibly proven."17 52. Here, it is necessary to consider that international jurisprudence has established that, in order to determine the international liability of a State for human rights violations, international human rights tribunals that have ample powers in the assessment of evidence presented before them regarding the relevant facts, pursuant to the rules of logic and on the basis of experience, taking into account the limits imposed by respect for legal security and the procedural balance of the parties.18 In keeping with that, In addition to direct evidence, be it testimonial, expert or documentary, particular importance attaches to the assessment and scope of the whole set of presumptions arising out of the facts that, based on experience, prove to be valid and logical.19. 53. In light of the above, pursuant to Article 43.1 of its Rules of Procedure20, the Commission will examine the facts alleged by the parties and the evidence produced during the processing of the instant case. It will also take into account information in the public domain, including resolutions of the universal human rights system committees, reports of the IACHR itself on petitions and cases, and on the overall human rights situation in Ecuador, publications by nongovernmental organizations, laws, decrees, and other regulatory 17 Note of the State of Ecuador of October 29, 2003. 18 See I/A Court H.R., Miguel Castro Castro Prison Case. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paragraph 184, citing the Almonacid Arellano case. Judgment of September 26, 2006, Series C No. 154, paragraph 69; Case of Servellón-García et al. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, paragraph 36; and Ximenes Lopes case. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, paragraphs 44 and 48. See also I/A Court H.R., Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparation (Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 26, 2003. Series C No. 102, paragraph 42. 19 See I/A Court H.R. Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of August 18, 2000, paragraph 47; I/A Court H.R. Case of the "Street Children" (Villagrán Morales et al), Judgment of November 19, 1999, paragraph 69; See I/A Court H.R., Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al, Judgment of May 30, 1997, par. 62; and I/A Court H.R., Caracazo Case, Reparation, Judgment of August 29, 2002, paragraph 55. 20 Article 43(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure provides as follows: The Commission shall deliberate on the merits of the case, to which end it shall prepare a report in which it will examine the arguments, the evidence presented by the parties, and the information obtained during hearings and on-site observations. In addition, the Commission may take into account other information that is a matter of public knowledge. 9