52 98. It must also be remembered that the international protection of human rights should not be confused with criminal justice. When States appear before the Court, they do so not as defendants in a criminal proceeding, since the Court does not impose punishment on those responsible for violating human rights. Its function is to protect the victims and to determine the reparation of the damages caused by the States responsible for such actions53. To this end [t]he sole requirement is to demonstrate that the State authorities supported or tolerated infringement of the rights recognized in the Convention. Moreover, the State's international responsibility is also at issue when it does not take the necessary steps under its domestic law54. 99. It is worth emphasizing that, in this case, the State did not present any type of evidence for the defense during the procedural opportunities indicated in Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure and, to the contrary, partially recognized its international responsibility. Both in the reply to the application and in its final arguments, the State concentrated its defense on the argument that, at the time of the facts, Guatemala was experiencing an internal conflict, and accepted its international responsibility with regard to the rights and guarantees established in Articles 8, 25 and 1(1) of the American Convention. 100. In this respect, the Court considers, as it has in other cases, that when the State does not provide a specific reply to the application, it is presumed that the facts about which it remains silent are true, provided that consistent conclusions about them can be inferred from the evidence presented55. However, the Court will proceed to examine and evaluate all the elements that comprise the evidence in this case, applying the rule of "sound criticism" that enables judges to arrive at a decision as to the truth of the alleged facts56. * * * 101. In the following paragraphs, the Court will consider various issues relating to the evidence presented in the instant case. 102. In regard to the evidence presented by the Commission, in its final written arguments, the State indicated that Nery Ángel Urízar García had not appeared before the Court and that the witness, Mario Ernesto Sosa Orellana (supra 63) “proved the inexactitude [of his] testimony” and that “he has a history of many criminal activities.” 103. In this respect, the Court considers that the videotape with the testimony of Nery Ángel Urízar García, contributed by the Commission as documentary evidence, lacks autonomous value, and the testimony that it contains cannot be admitted as it has not complied with the requirements for validity, such as the appearance of the witness before Court, his identification, swearing in, monitoring by the State and the possibility of questioning by the judge57. 53 Cf. Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, supra note 50, para. 90; Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra note 50, para. 71; Suárez Rosero Case. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case. Judgment of March 15, 1989. Series C No. 6, para. 136; Godínez Cruz Case. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5; para. 140; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 134. 54 Cf. Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 75; and Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra note 50, para. 91. 55 Cf. Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 68; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 53, para. 144; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, para. 138. 56 Cf. Cantoral Benavides Case. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 52; Durand and Ugarte Case. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, paras. 52-56; Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 71; Castillo Páez Case. Reparations, (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 40; Loayza Tamayo Case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, para. 57; and Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra note 50, para. 76. 57 Nery Ángel Urízar worked under the orders of Mario Ernesto Sosa Orellana in the intelligence office of Military Zone No. 1316 of Mazatenango, Suchitepéquez. In March 1992, there was a battle