themselves, by statements of General del Río himself, or testimony and statements of other members of the Armed Forces (supra para. 246) and, consequently, they must be assessed in this context. 268. Furthermore, in relation to the bombing that may have occurred at “Loma del Cacarica,” the Court reiterates that there is evidence to indicate that bombing or machine-gunning from a helicopter of the Armed Forces could have taken place in the site located at Loma de Cacarica, around two kilometers to the north of Puente América, objective No. 6 of Operation Genesis (supra para. 237). 269. In addition to the observations and assessments on the context and on the specific pieces of evidence presented in this case, the Court, as in other cases and on a complementary basis, takes into consideration other indications, circumstantial evidence and logical inferences to reach conclusions in relation to the contradictory versions of the events. The Court has established that it is legitimate to use circumstantial evidence, indications and presumptions to found a judgment, “provided that consistent conclusions about the facts can be inferred from them.”527 270. The Court has indicated that, in principle, the burden of proving the facts on which the complaint is based corresponds to the plaintiff. Nevertheless, it has emphasized that, unlike domestic criminal law, in proceedings on human rights violations the State’s defense cannot be based on the plaintiff’s inability to provide evidence when it is the State that controls the means to clarify events that occurred on its territory.528 271. First, it is worth noting that both Operation Genesis and “Operation Cacarica” occurred or were initiated towards the end of February 1997; in other words, almost simultaneously. 529 Nevertheless, although this could be an important element, it is not definitive; in particular taking into account that a priori the planning of the two operations was not carried out at the same time. In this regard, the former paramilitary Freddy Rendón stated before the Justice and Peace Unit of the Prosecutor General’s Office that the Operation in the Cacarica area had been planned as of August or September 1996,530 while the events that led to Operation Genesis (the kidnapping of four foreigners, ten soldiers and children by the FARC) dates from January 1997 (supra para. 97). 272. Second, in addition to the correspondence of the timing, there was “geographical correspondence”531 between the two operations, in the sense that “the objective [of both of them was] to occupy the sector of the Salaquí River and adjoining areas.”532 Likewise, the 527 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, para. 130, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, para. 95. 528 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, para. 135, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, para. 95. 529 This conclusion arises from comparing the texts of document in the case file from different State authorities, such as: intelligence report attached to Operations Order No. 004 “Genesis” (evidence file, folios 5516 and 5519); Prosecutor General’s Office, Powerpoint presentation and document “Operation Cacarica” (evidence file, folios 19263 and 19255 to 19259), and Prosecutor General’s Office, Dossier on the Elmer Cárdenas Bloc, Report No. 260 of June 25, 2012 (evidence file, folio 45156). 530 Cf. Voluntary confession of Fredy Rendón Herrera, minute by minute version of the Collective voluntary confessions of the candidates of the Elmer Cárdenas Bloc concerning Operation Genesis – Cacarica, Medellín, on April 28, 2010, before the Prosecutor General’s Office (evidence file, folio 18180). 531 Cf. Eighth Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit, file 2009-063, defendant Rito Alejo del Río, judgment of August 23, 2012 (evidence file, folio 14809). 532 Cf. Eighth Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit, file 2009-063, defendant Rito Alejo del Río, judgment of August 23, 2012 (evidence file, folio 14809). 94