142. In 2011, the accused was acquitted of the offense contained in article 320 of the Criminal Code, after it was considered that, “although [the evidence] does not create certainty that the victim was released, the fact is that there is a reasonable doubt in this regard, and this does not allow it to be inferred with certainty that the accused is criminally responsible for the enforced disappearance of the victim.” 252 The decision of April 17, 2013, which declared that the 2011 judgment was valid, indicated that “[the] evidence proves that the victim was, indeed, taken to the Cajatambo base, because he had been detained; however, it does not prove with certainty that he was disappeared by order of the accused.” 253 It then stated that the evidence “does not prove with certainty that the accused ordered or executed actions that resulted in the victim’s disappearance.” The decision concluded that “this is a clear case of doubt based on the exculpatory and inculpatory evidence; in other words, a case of in dubio pro reo; hence the accused must be acquitted.” 254 143. On this point, it is important to recall that the international human rights jurisdiction should not be confused with the criminal jurisdiction, because the States do not appear before the Court as subjects of a criminal action. 255 In this regard, it is pertinent to reiterate that, in order to establish that a violation of the rights recognized in the Convention has occurred, it is not necessary to prove the responsibility of the State beyond any reasonable doubt, or to identify individually the agents to which the violations are attributed; 256 rather, it is sufficient to prove that acts or omissions have been verified that have allowed the perpetration of those violations or that the State has an obligation with which it failed to comply. 257 144. In this regard, it is possible to consider that, if the State fails to comply with its obligation of due diligence in a criminal investigation, this may lead to the absence of sufficient evidence to clarify the events that are being investigated, to identify the possible perpetrators and participants, and to determine the eventual criminal responsibilities in the domestic sphere. Consequently, an acquittal may be taken into consideration as a factor to evaluate the State’s responsibility or the scope of this responsibility, but does not constitute per se a factor to affirm the absence of the State’s international responsibility, given the difference in the evidentiary standards or requirements in criminal trials and under international human rights law. ii.3) The application to this case of the context, systematic pattern and modus operandi of enforced disappearances committed by State agents 145. First, it is pertinent to recall that, in the exercise of its contentious jurisdiction, the Court has examined different historical, social and political contexts that have allowed it to situate the 252 Judgment delivered by the National Criminal Chamber on November 4, 2011 (evidence file, volume IX, annex 12 to the State’s answering brief, folio 4578). 253 Supreme final judgment R.N. No. 1071-2012 delivered by the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic on April 17, 2013 (evidence file, volume XII, annexes to the brief with the State’s final arguments, folio 5427). 254 Supreme final judgment R.N. No. 1071-2012 delivered by the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic on April 17, 2013 (evidence file, volume XII, annexes to the brief with the State’s final arguments, folio 5433). 255 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 134, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 133. 256 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 91, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 133. 257 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 172 and 173, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 133. 53