132. This Court has indicated since its first litigation that, for an international court, the criteria for assessing evidence are less rigid than under domestic legal systems and has stated that it can assess the evidence freely. 162 The Court must apply an assessment of the evidence that takes into account the gravity of attributing international responsibility to a State and that, despite this, is able to create confidence in the truth of the facts that have been alleged. 163 The Court has also established the criteria with regard to the burden of proof and has emphasized that, in proceedings concerning human rights violations, the State’s defense cannot be based on the impossibility of the complainant to provide evidence, when it is the State that controls the means to clarify facts that have taken place on its territory. 164 133. The international human rights jurisdiction must not be confused with the criminal jurisdiction, because States do not appear before the Court as subjects of a criminal action. 165 To establish that there has been a violation of the rights recognized in the Convention it is not necessary to prove the State’s responsibility beyond all reasonable doubt or to identify, individually, the agents to which the violations are attributed; 166 rather it is sufficient to demonstrate that acts or omissions have been verified that have allowed the perpetration of these violations or that a State obligation exists that the State has failed to meet. 167 134. In addition, the Court considers it pertinent to recall that it is legitimate to use circumstantial evidence, indications and presumptions to found a judgment, provided that conclusions consistent with the facts can be inferred from them. 168 Indicatory or presumptive evidence is of special importance in the case of complaints of forced disappearance, because this type of violation is characterized by the attempt to eliminate any element that would allow the detention, whereabouts, and fate of the victims to be determined. 169 D) Determination of the existence of the alleged forced disappearance and its subsistence at the time the State accepted the Court’s jurisdiction 162 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, paras. 127 and 128, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 162, para. 105. 163 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, para. 129, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra note 25, para. 249. 164 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, paras. 135 and 136, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 141. Similarly, see the decisions of the United Nations Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including: Eduardo Bleier v. Uruguay, CCPR/C/15/D/30/1978, Communication No. 30/1978, 29 March 1982, para. 13.3, and Héctor Alfredo Romero v. Uruguay, U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/39/40) in 159 (1984), Communication No. 85/1981, 22 July 1983, para. 12.3. 165 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, para. 134, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 162, para. 105. 166 Cf. Case of the “White Panel” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra note 67, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 21, para. 197. 167 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, paras. 172 and 173, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 73. 168 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, para. 130, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 141. 169 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, para. 131, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 49, para. 168. 44