12 and proportionality which must characterize any arrest or legal detention for it not to be deemed arbitrary. Indeed, the record contains no convincing arguments in favor of one thesis over the other, except for the statements of the parties, as follows: a. The Commission's assertion that "[i]t has been irrefutably proved that his detention was illegal, since it lasted longer than the six hours authorized under Surinamese law [. . .]" b. The Government Agent's assertion that "the authorities of Suriname acted pursuant to the provisions contained in Articles 52 clause 2) and 48 and 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [. . .]" 49. The Court has maintained that "in proceedings to determine human rights violations the State cannot rely on the defense that the complainant has failed to present evidence when it cannot be obtained without the State's cooperation" (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 135; Godínez Cruz Case, Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 141). In the exercise of its judicial functions and when ascertaining and weighing the evidence necessary to decide the cases before it, the Court may, in certain circumstances, make use of both circumstantial evidence and indications or presumptions on which to base its pronouncements when they lead to consistent conclusions as regards the facts of the case, particularly when the respondent State has assumed an uncooperative stance in its dealings with the Court. 50. The record shows that, by order of the President dated July 10, 1992, the Government was required to provide the official texts of the Constitution and of the substantive and criminal procedure laws governing cases of detention in its territory on the date on which Asok Gangaram Panday was detained. The Government did not produce the texts in question for the record, nor did it give any explanation for the omission. 51. In view of the foregoing, the Court infers from the position taken by the Government that Mr. Asok Gangaram Panday was illegally detained by members of the Military Police of Suriname when he arrived from Holland at Zanderij Airport. It is, therefore, not necessary for the Court to express an opinion with regard to the reported arbitrariness of that measure or the fact that he was not brought promptly before a competent judicial authority. VII 52. As for the torture to which Mr. Asok Gangaram Panday was allegedly subjected during the time he was kept in detention by the Military Police authorities, the Court finds as follows: a. The videotape supplied by the Commission in support of its allegations and which depicts the preparation of the body of Asok Gangaram Panday was taken on November 15, 1988, that is, one week after the victim's death, according to an uncontested statement made by witness Dr. M. A. Vrede during the public hearing. Witness Leo Gangaram Panday, the petitioner, contradicted himself with regard to the date of taping. b. The report of forensic pathologist Richard J. Baltaro, which was presented by the Commission, but was not confirmed before the Court, asserts that "[u]nfortunately, the bad quality of the tape makes it difficult to arrive at a precise diagnosis." This is corroborated by the forensic reports ordered by the Court to furnish better proof, which state that: "In view of the bad quality of the recording of the cassette, [. . .] all of the takes were rejected because they were technically unreliable for an analysis of the case" (Report of the Department of Forensic Medicine of the Bureau of Judicial Investigation of