12 principles of logic and on the basis of experience, in order to determine the international responsibility of a State for the violation of human rights.6 66. Based on the foregoing, the Court will now proceed to examine and weigh all the elements of the body of evidence in this case, according to the principle of sound criticism within the applicable legal framework. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 67. The Inter-American Commission provided documentary evidence when it submitted the application brief (supra paras. 1 and 12) and the brief on possible reparations and costs (supra para. 25).7 68. The State presented the helpful documentary evidence, requested by the Secretariat on the instructions of the President, in relation to the documents described by the Commission in paragraph 68 of the application (supra paras. 19, 21, 22, 45, 46 and 57).8 69. The State presented part of the helpful evidence on possible reparations and costs, requested by the Secretariat on the instructions of the President (supra paras. 50, 55, 58 and 62), and also the evidence requested by the Court in the Order of April 24, 2004 (supra paras. 55 and 60).9 70. The Commission submitted documentation during the presentation of its final oral arguments on merits and possible reparations and costs, and when submitting its final written arguments (supra paras. 53 and 56).10 71. The Commission forwarded the sworn statements of Carmen Rosa Barrera Sánchez, Lina Noralba Navarro Flórez, Luz Marina Pérez Quintero, Miryam Mantilla Sánchez, Ana Murillo Delgado de Chaparro, Suney Dinora Jáuregui Jaimes, Ofelia Sauza Suárez de Uribe, Rosalbina Suárez Bravo de Sauza, Marina Lobo Pacheco and Manuel Ayala Mantilla, next of kin of the alleged victims, given in writing before a 6 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 3, para. 48; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits and reparations. (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 26, 2003. Series C No. 102, para. 42; and Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 3, para. 120. 7 Cf. attachments A to B10 of the application brief of January 24, 2001, filed by the Commission (folios 547 to 1036 of tomes I and II of the file of attachments to the application) and attachments I to XV of the brief on possible reparations and costs of March 25, 2003, submitted by the Commission on March 31, 2003 (folios 1600 to 2038 of the file of attachments to the brief on possible reparations and costs). 8 Cf. attachments 1 to 10 submitted by the State on April 18, 2002 (folios 1037 to 1507 of tomes I and II of the files of evidence submitted by the State on April 18, 2002, which was requested by the President – paragraph 68 of the application), attachment 1 submitted by the State on May 28, 2002 (folios 1508 to 1599 of the file of evidence submitted by the State on May 28, 2002, requested by the President – paragraph 68 of the application) and copies of the files of the criminal proceedings submitted by the State on May 24 and 26, 2004. 9 The State did not forward all the information requested regarding the certifications of the domestic proceedings. Cf. File of helpful evidence on reparations submitted by the State on May 24 and 26, 2004. 10 Cf. attachments 1 to 59 submitted by the Commission on April 22, 2004 (folios 2039 to 2942 of tomes I and II of the files of documentation produced by the Inter-American Commission during the public hearing on merits and possible reparations and costs).