31 statements, there are certain differences in relation to the transcriptions furnished and that the videos only show excerpts of all the speeches and that they have been edited.52 110. Regarding the other documents and videos furnished by the representatives and the State together with their respective briefs of final arguments, the Court considers that they were untimely submitted and therefore it does not admit them into the body of evidence. 111. Finally, based on the principle of procedural economy and promptness, the Court considers useful to admit certain domestic laws submitted in the case of Luisiana Rios et al. V. Venezuela53, into the body of evidence. * * * 112. Upon formally examining the evidence contained in the records of the instant case, the Court shall now proceed to analyze the violations alleged by the American Convention in consideration of the facts that the Court consider proven, as well as the legal arguments of the parties. In doing so, the Tribunal will assess them on the basis of sound judgment, within the applicable legal framework54. It is worth mentioning that international courts are deemed to have authority to appraise and assess evidence following the rules of logic and based on experience, and has always avoided rigidly setting the quantum of evidence required to reach a decision55. Circumstantial or indirect evidence or inference may be used, as long as solid conclusions regarding the facts can be inferred from such evidence56. 113. The Court shall come to the corresponding determination observing that the evidence tendered, including the statements, coincide with each other, that there are other supporting items of evidence and, in general, that the evidence furnished is sufficient, varied, suitable, reliable and relevant to prove the facts subjected to the analysis. That is to say, it is necessary to verify that the assumptions put forward by the parties are proven, as well as the degree of rational credibility of the conclusion the party alleging it intend to 52 Specifically, the Court notes that in the statement of January 12, 2003, a segment of the speech was omitted from the transcription. Furthermore, the Tribunal verifies that in the description of the statements of October 4, 2001 and June 9, 2002 presented by the Commission and the representatives, the order of the speech has been modified. As to the statement of October 4, 2001, even though it was alleged as omitted on October 5, 2001, from the content of the video so furnished, there is evidence proving that it was actually made on October 4, 2001. 53 These documents, presented as exhibits to the State’s brief of October 24, 2008 in this case, are: “Full Copy of the Official Gazette Number 38.536 of October 4, 2006, that contains the last Act for the Partial Amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure […] Full Copy of the Official Gazette Number 5.558 of November 14, 2001, that contains the Code of Criminal Procedure in force in Venezuela at the time of the events […] Full Copy of the Official Gazette Number 5.208 of January 23, 1998, that contains the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time of the events […] Full Copy of the Official Gazette Number 38.647 of March 19, 2007, that contains the Basic Law of the Public Prosecutors’ Office in force at the present time , […] Full Copy of the Official Gazette Number 5.262 of September 11, 1998, that contains the Basic Law of the Public Prosecutors’ Office in force at the time of the events [and] Full Copy of the Official Gazette Number 37.995 of August 5, 2004, that contains the only Ombudsman Act, in force at the time of the events […]”. 54 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, Merits, supra note 37, para. 76; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 20 para. 54 and Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia, supra note 44, para. 31. 55 Cf. Case of “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala; Reparations and costs; supra note 36, para. 51; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 27, para. 69; and Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras, supra note 36, para. 35. 56 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 33, para. 130.