23 VI EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE 67. In the instant case, the State did not directly contest the facts alleged by the Commission or the charges of violation of Articles 7, 4 and 5 of the American Convention and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Convention against Torture. In answering the application and in its final arguments, Guatemala concentrated its defense on the contention that the facts of the case had been investigated by the courts, which had issued a series of decisions on them – including a judgment of the Supreme Court – that may not be discussed by other public bodies, under the principle of the independence of the Judiciary. 68. In this respect, the Court considers, as it has done in other cases, that when the State does not specifically contest the application, the facts on which it remains silent are presumed to be true, provided that the existing evidence leads to conclusions that are consistent with such facts12. However, the Court will proceed to examine and evaluate all the elements that make up the probative material in the case. 69. The Court will rule on the present case on the basis of both direct evidence – testimonies, expert reports or documents, inter alia – and indirect evidence; and as the consideration and use of the latter is complex, the Court deems it pertinent to establish certain criteria on this point. The Court, as the domestic tribunals, may base its judgments on indirect evidence – such as circumstantial evidence, indicia and presumptions – when they are coherent, confirm each other and lead to solid conclusions that are consistent with the facts under examination13. 70. In previous cases, the Court granted circumstantial status to police reports prior to the judicial investigation, because they contained interrogations, statements, descriptions of places and facts and records of the results of legal practices such as those relating to the removal of the victims’ corpses, that help to form a well grounded opinion on the facts, when related to concurrent elements of evidence14. 71. In this case, the Court considers that the police reports contained in the file are useful because, apart from the elements mentioned in the previous paragraph, they include descriptions of autopsies and ballistic reports and reports that attribute responsibilities and, moreover, because they were presented during the domestic legal procedure and duly acknowledged even before this Court. When considered together with the remainder of the evidence, and in the light of the rules of competent analysis and experience, they make it possible to reach consistent conclusions on the facts. 12 Cf. Godínez Cruz case. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 144 and Velásquez Rodríguez case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 138. 13. Cf. Castillo Petruzzi et al. case. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 62; in the same sense, Paniagua Morales et al. case. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 72; Gangaram Panday case. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 49; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales case. Judgment of March 15, 1989. Series C No. 6, paras. 130-133; Godínez Cruz case, supra note 12, paras. 133-136 and Velásquez Rodríguez case, supra note 12, paras. 127-130. 14. Cf. Paniagua Morales et al. case, supra note 13, para. 81.