10 28. Regarding the objections of the State to said expert opinion, this Tribunal has understood that, unlike witnesses, expert witnesses may render technical or personal opinions insofar as they fall within their special knowledge or experience and they may refer to specific aspects of the case as well as other relevant aspects thereof, so long as they are limited to the purpose for which the same were requested.16 Regarding the other objections of the State, the Court considers that they may be analyzed, where appropriate, in the study of the merits of the case, given that it is a matter of evidentiary weight and not of admissibility of the evidence.17 Therefore, the Tribunal admits the expert report of the expert witness and shall assess it along with the body of evidence. 29. Upon formally examining the evidence contained in the records of the instant case, the Court shall now proceed to analyze the alleged violations of the American Convention in consideration of the proven facts, as well as the legal arguments of the parties. In doing so, the Tribunal will assess them on the basis of sound judgment, within the applicable legal framework.18 It is worth mentioning that international courts are deemed to have authority to appraise and assess evidence following the rules of logic and based on experience, and has always avoided rigidly setting the quantum of evidence required to reach a decision.19 VI ON THE FORCED DISAPPEARANCE OF KENNETH NEY ANZUALDO CASTRO (ARTICLE 7 (PERSONAL LIBERTY)20, 5 (HUMANE TREATMENT)21, 4(1) (LIFE)22 15 Specifically, the State alleged that the expert witness: a) made an appraisal when he indicated that there was no policy related to the forensic investigation field in Peru, addressed to search for the disappeared people in Peru during the armed conflict, while he was not aware of the fact that in Peru, the Institute of Legal Medicine [Instituto de Medicina Legal]- which forms part of the Office of the Public Prosecutor- has published both directives in the Official Gazette “ El Peruano”; b) there was no scientific accuracy in his opinion since it was not based on his personal expert examination for the gathering of information, but on third parties' examinations; c) he never mentioned to have found, in the procedure of 2002 at the basements of the Army’s headquarters, proof or evidence of the disappearance of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro; d) as to the price of the DNA tests, “he has not showed one document that may determine the truthfulness of the amounts he claimed", which are more expensive than he indicated; e) he did not clearly explain the value of the proposal for the creation of a DNA bank, which "is impossible to complete" inasmuch as an unknown universe of disappeared people must be created; f) the figure mentioned as to the number of forced disappearances of 1.5 percent of an unknown universe "reveals an inappropriate and light use of the sense of the reality of the Republic of Peru.” 16 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) V. Mexico. Order of the Court’s President of March 18, 2009, considering clause 75; and Case of Reverón Trujillo V. Venezuela, supra note 11, para. 42. 17 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo V. Bolivia, supra note 11, para. 43. 18 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala, Merits, supra note 12, para. 76; Case of Escher et al. V. Brazil, supra note 6, para. 55; and Case of Reverón Trujillo V. Bolivia, supra note 11, para. 26. 19 Cf. Case of “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Reparations and costs; supra note 9, para. 51; Case of Perozo et al. V. Venezuela, supra note 6, para. 112; and Case of Rios et al. V. Venezuela, supra note 6, para. 101. 20 Article 7 1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 21 Article 5 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.