these can be used, provided they lead to conclusions consistent with the facts. 79 Similarly, there does not have to be an absolute concordance between the different element of the contexts and the facts of the case for them to be taken into account when analyzing a specific case. A case-by-case assessment should be made concerning the extent to which those patterns or contexts may be used as indications, presumptions or circumstantial evidence together with the rest of the body of evidence. b) The analysis of the specific case 69. With regard to the two versions of the facts of the case, first, the Court notes that it is difficult to determine whether there was a confrontation between the police officers owing to a report of a robbery or whether, to the contrary, the events occurred as indicated by the representatives and the Commission. Material and testimonial evidence exists that supports both versions and allows contradicting conclusions to be reached. Also, on two occasions, the Venezuelan criminal courts have considered that the police officers had resorted to a legitimate use of force and delivered acquittal judgments (supra para. 49). In this regard, it should be recalled that this Court has repeatedly indicated that it is not a criminal court in which the criminal responsibility of an individual can be determined. 80 Thus, under Article 1(1) of the Convention,81 in order to establish that a violation of the rights recognized in the Convention has occurred, it is not necessary to determine the guilt of the perpetrators or their intentions, as under domestic criminal law, nor it is necessary to prove this beyond any reasonable doubt, or identify individually the agents to whom the violations are attributed. 82 For the purposes of this Court, it must be convinced that acts or omissions have occurred that can be attributed to the State and that the State had an international obligation it has failed to meet.83 70. Regarding the alleged robbery suffered by R.D.P. (supra para. 41) that, according to the version argued by the State, gave rise to the series of events that culminated in the death of the three direct alleged victims, this Court lacks evidence to determine whether or not it actually occurred. In addition, neither the representatives nor the Commission presented specific evidence that could call into question the credibility of the testimony of R.D.P. that he had been the victim of a robbery prior to the first alleged confrontation. 71. Similarly, the Court notes that it has been alleged that the use of force in this case was illegitimate taking into account, among other matters, that the police officers did not have a court order and that there was no situation of flagrante delicto that could have justified them trying to arrest the three alleged victims – and this, assuming the version of the authorities with regard to the robbery that had occurred some minutes before this event. 72. In this regard, the Court has already indicated that it was unreasonable to completely reject the version according to which a robbery may have taken place that justified the attempt by the police to arrest the alleged victims some minutes later. This situation could possibly have been in keeping with the provisions of Venezuela’s domestic law on flagrante Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 130, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru, para. 150. 79 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37, and Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 363, para. 83. 80 Cf. inter alia, Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru, para. 163; Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 76, and Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia, para. 83. 81 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 75, and Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia, para. 83. 82 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, paras. 127 and 128, and Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia, para. 83. 83 -23-