29 67. The Court admits the expert opinions of the expert witnesses offered (supra 53.a, 53.b, 56.b, and 56.c, and considers them to have probatory value because, as pointed out above (supra 42), as an international human rights court, it is not necessarily subject to the same formalities required under domestic law,30 but rather can assess the evidence supplied, including the expert opinions of expert witnesses, in such a way that they contribute to elucidate its consequences in the case. Furthermore, the Court highlights the fact that the expert opinions issued in the sub judice case were not challenged or disputed. 68. The Court will assess the probatory value of the documents, testimony, and expert opinions submitted in writing or rendered before the Court. Evidence submitted at all stages of the proceedings has been included in the same body of evidence, which is considered a whole.31 VIII PROVEN FACTS 69. The Court has examined the items of evidence and the respective arguments of the parties and, as a result of this examination, finds the following facts to be proven: 3) A) With respect to the practice of massive detentions 1. at the time of the facts, there were indiscriminate police detention practices, including the so-called razzias, detentions to establish identity and detentions in accordance with police edicts on misdemeanors. Memorandum 40 authorized 30 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 4, para. 30; “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 4, para. 65; Cantos Case, supra note 6, para. 27; Las Palmeras Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 18; El Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 38; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 5, para. 65; Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). February 27, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 92, para. 37; Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). February 22, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 91, para. 15; Cantoral Benavides Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). December 3, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 88, para. 22; Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case, supra note 4, para. 89; Cesti Hurtado Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). May 31, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 78, para. 21; “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales at al.). Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). May 26, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 77, para. 40; “White Van” Case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). May 25, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 76, para. 51; Ivcher Bronstein Case. February 6, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 74, para. 65; “The Last Temptation of Christ” Case (Olmedo Bustos et al.). February 5, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 73, paras. 49 and 51; Baena Ricardo et al. Case, supra note 28, para. 71; Case of the Constitutional Court. January 31, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 71, para. 46; Bámaca Velásquez Case. November 25, 2000 Judgment. Series C No. 70, para. 96; Cantoral Benavides Case. August 18, 2000 Judgment. Series C No. 69, para. 45; Durand and Ugarte Case. August 16, 2000 Judgment. Series C No. 68, para. 45; Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case. May 30, 1999 Judgment. Series C No. 52, para. 61; Castillo Páez Case, November 3, 1997 Judgment. Series C No. 34, para. 39; Loayza Tamayo Case, September 17, 1997 Judgment. Series C No. 33, para. 42; and Paniagua Morales et al. Case. March 8, 1998 Judgment. Series C No. 37, para. 70. 31 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 4, para. 60; Las Palmeras Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 34; and El Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 62.