43 considered that the decisions adopted constituted “important precedents for Latin American justice in matters of human rights.” 149 137. Second, the State argued that the existence of a forced disappearance can only be determined by the domestic criminal courts and through the use of appropriate evidence, and that this Court cannot attribute responsibility for having committed those disappearances without reliable evidence. 138. The Court recalls that international human rights jurisdiction should not be confused with criminal jurisdiction, since the States do not appear before the Court as defendants in a criminal action. The purpose of international human rights law is not to punish those individuals who are guilty of human rights violations, but rather to protect the victims and to provide for the reparation of the harm resulting from the acts of the States responsible. 150 In order to establish that a violation of the rights enshrined in the Convention has occurred, it is not necessary to prove the responsibility of the State beyond all reasonable doubt or to identify individually the agents to whom the violations are attributed; rather, it is sufficient to demonstrate that there have been actions or omissions that have allowed the perpetration of those violations or that the State has failed to discharge its obligations. 151 This requires the Court to apply a standard of proof that considers the seriousness of the charge and is capable of establishing the truth of the allegations in a convincing manner. 152 Finally, this Court considers it pertinent to recall that in order to support a judgment, circumstantial or presumptive evidence is especially important in allegations of forced disappearance, because this type of violation is characterized by an attempt to suppress any information that would make it possible to verify the detention, whereabouts and fate of the victims. 153 B.1. Determination of the occurrence of the alleged forced disappearances and their continuation over time 139. The Court will now analyze the forced disappearances alleged in the instant case. In this regard, the Commission identified eight persons as victims of forced disappearance. In addition, the representatives identified 10 persons as victims of forced disappearance in their pleadings and motions brief, 68 persons during the public hearing and 42 persons in its final written arguments. The Court has made a comparison of all the lists mentioned and, as a result, it notes that some names are repeated in all the lists, other names only appear in two lists and some others were only included in one list. Thus, based on this comparison of all the names, it is possible to conclude that a total of 81 persons 154 have been alleged as victims of forced 149 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 3, 2009. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, considering paragraphs 8 and 15. 150 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 134. 151 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, paras. 172 and 173, and Case of Gonzáles Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic, para. 133. 152 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 129, and Case of González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic, para. 132. 153 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 131, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, para. 230. 154 The 81 persons are: 1. Víctor Juárez Pangán; 2. Clemente Juárez Ixpancoc; 3. Cruz Sic Cuxum; 4. Pedro Sic Jerónimo; 5. Gregorio Valey; 6. Timoteo Sic Cujá; 7. Roberto Galiego Chen; 8. Antonio Alvarado González; 9. Alfonso Cruz Juárez; 10. Domingo Cahuec Sic; 11. Santiago Alvarado Xitumul; 12. Agustín Juárez Ixpancoc; 13. Teodoro González; 14. Eulogio Morales Alvarado; 15. Luciano González; 16. Apolinario Juárez Pérez, 17. Alberto Juárez Pérez; 18. Evaristo Siana; 19. Pedro Tum; 20. Egmidio Siana; 21. Pedro Galiego López; 22. Demetrio Chen Alvarado; 23. Pedro Galiego Mendoza; 24. Camilo Juárez Valey; 25. Julián Garniga; 26. Benito Juárez Ixpancoc; 27. Francisco Depaz; 28. Maximiliano Sis Valey; 29. Vicente Sic Osorio; 30. Patrocinio Galiego; 31. Félix Alvarado Xitumul; 32. José Demetrio Cahuec Jerónimo; 33. Andrea Osorio Galeano; 34. Silvestre Sic Xitumul; 35. Raymunda Sical Corazón; 36. Adrián García Manuel; 37. Hugo García Depaz; 38. Agapito Alvarado Depaz; 39. Edmundo Alarcón Morente; 40. Manuel of Jesús Alarcón Morente; 41. Juan Pérez Sic; 42. Gorgonio Gonzalez Gonzalez; 43. Gabino Román Ivoy; 44. Cruz Pérez Amperez; 45. Eustaquio Ixtecoc González; 46. Jorge Galeano Román; 47. Rafael Depaz Tecú; 48. Enrique Mendoza Sis; 49. Dionisio Bachán; 50. Elías Milián González, 51. Amelia Milián Morales; 52. Eusebia Grave García; 53. José León Grave García,