31 the assessment of evidence presented before them regarding the relevant facts, pursuant to the rules of logic and on the basis of experience.16 185. Based on the aforementioned, the Court will proceed to examine and assess the documentary evidentiary elements forwarded by the Commission, the common intervener, and the State in the different procedural opportunities or as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case requested. For this, the Tribunal will comply with the principles of competent analysis, within the corresponding legal framework. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 186. Among the documentary evidence presented by the parties, the Commission and the common intervener forwarded testimonial statements and written expert reports, in response to that stated by the President in his Ruling of May 24, 2006 (supra para. 65). Besides, another group of representatives presented testimonial statements requested by the President as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case in said Ruling (supra para. 65). Finally, the intervener presented a written testimonial statement that had not been requested by the President and asked that it be admitted (supra para. 82). Said statements and expert reports are summarized below: Statements a) Proposed by the common intervener: 1. Michael Stephen Bronstein, inmate of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison at the time of the facts He is a British citizen and during the time of the facts he was detained in the Miguel Castro Castro Prison in pavilion 6A. The women who were suspected of belonging to Sendero Luminoso were detained in pavilion 1A. It was known in the prison that the authorities had decided to relocate the women imprisoned for crimes against security in a new high security prison. There were rumors regarding the realization of an inspection of large proportions. On May 6, 1992 strong explosions awakened him, coming from pavilion 1A, which would continue the following days. The police was throwing grenades from the roof, which exploded on the outsides of the windows in order to keep the inmates far away from them; they were also throwing fulminating grenades from helicopters through the fans, that transported more soldiers to the inside of the criminal center. Due to the intensity of the attacks on the first day he believes that their intent was to kill the women. The latter tried to run through the conduits to pavilion 4 to save their lives. On the third day the events were intensified. The authorities brought all the prisoners together in pavilions 6A, 6B, and 5, and they were obliged to go out to the courtyard and sit in rows without moving for 18 hours. During that time the witness could hear on the news that the then President Fujimori had no intention of negotiating. Towards the end of the “operative” the witness heard that Colonel 16 Cfr. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 15, párr. 69; Case of Servellón García et al., supra nota 3, pára. 35; y Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, páras.. 44 y 48.