149. The Court understands that the State is not disputing the conclusions of the report of the Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission referred to in this Judgment, but is contesting their application to this case in order to determine the existence of the enforced disappearance. Added to this, the State argues that there is direct evidence that disproves a possible attribution of responsibility based on the method used in the case of Velázquez Rodríguez mentioned above. 150. On this point, it should be recalled that the Court has always avoided the adoption of a strict determination of the quantum of evidence needed to provide grounds for a judgment. This criterion is especially valid as regards the international human rights courts which, in order to determine the international responsibility of a State for a violation of human rights, have considerable flexibility in the assessment of the evidence provided to them concerning the pertinent acts, in accordance with the rules of logic and based on experience, without having to be subject to precise rules of evidence. 264 However, the attribution of responsibility to a State for the acts of State agents or private individuals must be established based on the particularities and circumstances of each case. 265 Regarding circumstantial evidence, indications and presumption may be used provided that conclusions consistent with the facts can be inferred from them. 266 Indicative or presumptive evidence is of special importance in the case of reports of enforced disappearance, because this type of violation is characterized by the attempt to eliminate any evidence that could prove the detention, whereabouts and fate of the victims. 267 151. In this regard, the Court notes that, over the period relevant for this case, and according to the conclusions of the CVR, disappearances were carried out selectively (supra para. 55). This assertion allows their general or massive occurrence to be discarded, in the sense that a large number of acts of enforced disappearance would be required for a systematic practice; accordingly, a single disappearance could be part of such a practice, if it can be associated with a pattern of action or if it is carried out according to a State-designed plan. In this regard, the CVR established that the Armed Forced approved the systematization of a counterinsurgency strategy, so that at this stage the human rights violations decreased, but were more deliberate or planned than during the preceding stage. 268 The Court has also referred above to the modus operandi of the enforced disappearances committed by State agents within the framework of this systematic practice. 152. In view of the fact that the pattern of enforced disappearances established by the CVR was associated with the actions of State agents during the armed conflict and that, at the time relevant for this case, this pattern had acquired systematic characteristics, the fact that the province of Cajatambo was under a state of emergency where the Armed Forces were in charge of internal order (supra paras. 61, 119 and 121), and that the Palmira Plan of Operations was being executed (supra paras. 63 and 64), confirms that this pattern was applicable to that province, even though 264 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 51, and Case of Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 27, 2012, Series C No. 256, para. 113. 265 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 113, and Case of Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 113. 266 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 130, and Case of Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 113. 267 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 131, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 134. 268 Cf. Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Informe Final, 2003, volume VIII, General conclusions, paras. 60 and 61 (evidence file, volume III, annex 13 to the submission of the case, folios 1583 and 1584). 55