158. Based on the above, taking into account the application of the death penalty as a consequence of the concept of “future dangerousness” of the agent, this Court concludes that the State is internationally responsible for the violation of the rights recognized in Articles 4(2) and 9 of the American Convention, in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, to the detriment of Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila. In addition, this Court considers that in this case the State is not responsible for the violation of Articles 4(1) and 4(6) of the American Convention. VIII-3 RIGHT TO LIFE, REGARDING THE DEATH MR. VALENZUELA ÁVILA126 A. Arguments of the Commission and the Parties 159. The Commission argued that the State had extrajudicially executed Mr. Tirso Román Valenzuela on December 8, 2006, as part of a plan to recapture the prisoners. It concluded that the State violated Article 4(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 160. The representatives argued that the State is responsible for having arbitrarily deprived Mr. Valenzuela Ávila of his life, in violation of Article 4(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 161. The State argued that the situation regarding the death of the alleged victim is still under investigation and has not been resolved because it has not been possible to establish or verify the elements of an extrajudicial execution due to the complexities that the case has presented. Consequently, the State considered that Article 4(1) of the Convention was not violated, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. B. Considerations of the Court 162. This Court notes that both the Commission and the representatives argued that Mr. Valenzuela had been extrajudicially executed. Therefore, they concluded that Guatemala violated Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. The State, however, indicated that it has not yet been possible to establish the elements of an extrajudicial execution due to the complexities that arise in the case, which is still being investigated at the domestic level. 163. In cases such as this one, where there is no direct evidence of the actions of state agents, the Court has highlighted that the use of circumstantial evidence and presumptions as basis of a judgment is legitimate, provided that they infer consistent conclusions about the facts.127 In this regard, this Court has indicated that, in principle, the burden of proof of the facts on which its argument is based corresponds to the complainant. However, it has stressed that, in proceedings involving human rights violations, the State cannot rely on the defense 126 Article 4 of the American Convention. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, para. 135, and Case of Arrom Suhurt et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 95. 127 40