11 authority to appraise and assess evidence based on the rules of a reasonable credit and weight analysis, has always avoided rigidly setting the quantum of evidence required as the grounds for a decision. This criterion is especially valid with respect to international human rights courts, which, for the purpose of determining the international responsibility of a State for the violation of the rights of a person, enjoy ample flexibility when assessing the evidence submitted to them bearing on the pertinent facts, in accordance with the rules of logic and based on experience.5 47. Based on the above, the Court will now proceed to examine and assess the set of elements making up the body of evidence in the instant case, within the legal framework discussed above. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 48. As part of the evidence produced, the parties have submitted the testimonies —in the form of affidavits before a notary public— given by Mrs. Victoria Margarita Palomino-Buitrón and Esmila Liliana Conislla-Cárdenas, and by expert witnesses María del Pilar Raffo-Lavalle de Quiñones and Sofía Macher, pursuant to the Order of the President of August 19, 2005 (supra para. 18). This Court considers it pertinent to transcribe below a summary of the relevant parts of said affidavits: a) Testimony of Ms. Mrs. Victoria Margarita Palomino-Buitrón, mother of Mr. Santiago Gómez-Palomino. The witness is 62 years old and lives with her daughters and her son in the city of Lima. When she learned about the detention and disappearance of her son Mr. Santiago Gómez-Palomino, which took place on July 9, 1992, she “did not know what to do.” Very early the following morning, she went to La Curva Police Department. There, she asked if her son had been taken in during the early hours, but only got negative answers. After questioning her about the details of the incident, one of the officers told her that “if the men were hooded, then they were terrorists.” She burst into tears, did not know where to go or who to resort to. Next, she went to the Police Precincts in Chorrillos, Barranco and Miraflores, but she never got “any answer.” She looked for her son everywhere —the morgue, the Palace of Justice, and the hospitals, but again, nobody gave her any information on his whereabouts. She then resorted to the offices of “Human Rights” and “Disappeared Persons.” Her other children and Mr. Santiago Gómez-Palomino’s common-law wife accompanied her in her search. She suffers a great deal because her son was quite affectionate with her and with his brother and sisters; he used to take them "[th]eir fruit and [th]eir chicken." She has known no quiet ever since her son went missing and would like his body to be found so that she could take flowers to him and be able to say “he is lying there.” Santiago was the one who helped her financially, as most of her children were then minors and the witness only works once a week doing the laundry at other people's home once a week. Her son would say, “My little wee girl, here is your money;” he 5 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 73; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes,supra note 4, para. 35, and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler., supra note 4, para. 39.