- 25 - 66. Having made a formal examination of the probative elements in the file of the instant case, the Court will proceed to examine the alleged violations of the American Convention, based on the facts that it finds have been proved, as well as on the arguments of the parties. To this end, it will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding normative framework.72 In these terms, international courts have broad faculties to consider and assess the evidence, in accordance with the rules of logic and based on experience, without having to subject themselves to the rules of evidence assessment.73 In this regard, circumstantial evidence, indications and presumptions may be used, provided they lead to consistent conclusions regarding the facts.74 IV.3 THE RIGHTS TO LIFE AND TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF SENATOR MANUEL CEPEDA VARGAS (ARTICLES 4(1) AND 5(1) IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS ESTABLISHED IN ARTICLE 1(1)), OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 67. The State acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of Senator Cepeda’s right to life, by act and omission, because the perpetrators were two Army sergeants, and because it had failed to adopt the necessary measures to protect him from the danger he faced (supra para. 13). 68. According to the Commission and the representatives, the dispute concerning the violation of the right to life subsists in relation to the following elements: the alleged existence of a systematic pattern of violence against members of the UP, in the context of which the extrajudicial execution of Senator Cepeda Vargas took place; the alleged responsibility of State agents in the authorship of the extrajudicial execution; the supposed operational coordination between members of the Army and of paramilitary groups to perpetrate the murder, and the State’s responsibility for the participation of members of these groups in the execution; the supposed existence of the so-called “coup de grâce” plan, the purpose of which was to exterminate the leaders of the UP, including Senator Cepeda Vargas; the alleged failure to comply with the obligation to conduct an appropriate investigation into a complex crime such as the one of which Senator Cepeda Vargas was a victim; the alleged violation of Articles 41 and 44 of the Convention in relation to the right to life, since Senator Cepeda Vargas was a beneficiary of precautionary measures at the time of his murder, and the intent to characterize this violation of the right to life as a crime against humanity. 69. Finally, the State acknowledged the violation of the right to Mr. Cepeda Vargas (supra para. 13), and the Commission and have not referred specifically to this violation. Consequently, the dispute has ceased in this regard, without prejudice to noting the this in order to determine other aspects of the violations. personal integrity of the representatives Court finds that the facts that motivated 72 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra note 57, para. 76; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 57, para. 55, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 24, para. 67. 73 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, Reparations and costs, supra note 56, para. 51; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 36, para. 29, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 49, para. 112. 74 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 36, Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 36, para. 38, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 25, para. 127.