29 . 101. After formally examining the evidentiary elements on record in the dossier of the present case, the Court proceeds to analyze the alleged violations to the American Convention in consideration of the facts the Court has determined were proven, as well as of the legal arguments of the parties. For this, it will obey the principles of competent analysis, within the corresponding legal framework. 66 In those terms, international courts have ample powers to appraise and assess the evidence, pursuant with the rules of logic and based on experience, without being subject to rules of evidence assessed. 67 Circumstantial evidence, clues, and presumptions may be used as long as conclusions consistent with the facts can be inferred from them. 68 102. The Court will make the corresponding determinations observing if the evidentiary elements, including the statements, are coinciding between themselves, that there are other elements of conviction that support them, and, in general, that the evidence provided is enough, varied, ideal, reliable, and appropriate to prove the facts object of analysis. That is, it shall verify that the premises set forth have been proven, as well as the degree of rational credibility of the conclusion the party that argues them wishes to reach. Thus, each specific hypothesis argued within a determined content shall be supported by evidentiary elements, so it acquires its own level of confirmation based on the evidentiary elements available, which would allow the hypothesis that results most acceptable regarding others to be considered proven, as long as it has a greater level of confirmation or support on the evidence. VIII ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT THE RIGHTS) OF THE CONVENTION 69 IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 5(1) (RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT) 70 AND 13(1) (FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION) THEREOF 103. Article 5(1) of the Convention enshrines the right to personal, physical, mental, and moral integrity. 104. Article 13 of the Convention acknowledges the rights and freedoms of all people to express their thoughts, to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of any nature, as well as the right to receive information and know of the expression of foreign thoughts.71 66 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Merits, supra note 45, para. 76; Case of Valle Jaramillos et al. V. Colombia, supra note 29, para. 54, and Case of ticona Estrada V. Bolivia, supra note 48, para. 31. 67 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala, supra note 44, para. 51; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. V. Chile, supra note 26, para. 69; and Case of Servellón García et al., supra note 44, para. 35. 68 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 45, para. 130. 69 Article 5(1) of the Convention states that: “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” 70 Article 13(1) of the Convention states that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one’s choice.” 71 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism. (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, paras. 30-32. See also Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) V. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001, para. 64; Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001, Series C No. 74, para. 146; Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 108; Case of Ricardo Canese V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 77, and Case of Kimel V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 53.