14 them. She found out on the radio about the uprisings in El Frontón on June 18, 1986. Once at Callao, many prisoners' relatives were shouting for them not to be killed, but they could see too much smoke on the island. Around 10:00 a.m., the police and the army, wearing hoods, took away the prisoners' relatives who were at Callao on trucks. So she stayed until 3:00 or 4:00 p.m., but she did not know anything about what had happened to her relatives in the incident. She did not know about their relatives’ fate on the media. Her attorney indicated that they were maybe taken to San Lorenzo or that they were set free. They filed an habeas corpus recourse before the Callao Court. She looked for their names in the list of deceased people during the riots, that were available at the Palace of Justice, but she was not able to find them there. She went to the Central Morgue where corpses were taken after the uprisings, but her relatives’ bodies were not there. Those at the Central Morgue were “all burned, head and hair burned too, some of them were crushed and some destroyed”. She was not able to find them either among the corpses at Huachipa cemetery where she looked among the dead bodies. None of the authorities gave her an explanation about her relatives' fate. Their bodies were never given to her and on the newspaper she found out that after the riots her son and brother were declared judicially not guilty. Later on, she suffered from a partial paralysis of her body and was hospitalized for several months and stated that she was afraid for what could happen to her after submitting her statement before the Court. VII EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT 44. Once evidence described was gathered, the Court shall determine the general criteria, most of them developed by the jurisprudence of this Tribunal, about evidence appraisal in this case. 45. In an international tribunal such as the Inter-American Court whose one of the main tasks is to protect human rights, the proceedings had some peculiarities that differentiated it from a national law process, being the latter less formal and more flexible than this one, without disregarding legal certainy and process balance between the parties. 8 46. On the other hand, it is necessary to bear in mind how international jurisdiction of human rights differs from penal justice and must not be confused with it. Whenever the States submit themselves before the Court, they are never subjected to a criminal proceeding because the Court does not punish liable parties for the violation of human rights. On the contrary, its function is to declare that a human right has been violated to the detriment of some persons, to protect the victim and to determine the reparation of damages caused by the States submitted to the international responsibility resulting from said violation. 9 8 cf. Castillo Petruzzi et al Case. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 60; Castillo Páez Case. Reparations (art. 63(1) Inter-American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 38; Loayza Tamayo Case. Reparations (art. 63(1) Inter-American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, para. 38; Paniagua Morales et al Case. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 70; Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 21, 1994, Series C No. 17, para. 44; and Cayara Case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14, para. 42. 9 cf. Paniagua Morales et al Case, supra note 8, para. 71; Suárez Rosero Case, Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37: Fairen Garbi and Solís Corrales Case. Judgment of March