takes into account the seriousness of attributing international responsibility to a state and that, notwithstanding this, is capable of establishing the truth of the allegations in a convincing manner. 112 To this end, in cases of forced disappearance of personas, the use of circumstantial evidence, indicia and presumptions is legitimate and of particular importance to prove the concurrence of any of the elements of forced disappearance, because this specific type of violation is characterized by an attempt to suppress any information that would ratify the detention, whereabouts and fate of the victims.113 In keeping with these criteria, the Court attributes significant probative value to the statements of witnesses, in the context and the circumstances of a case of forced disappearance, with all the difficulties that result from this, where the evidence is essentially indirect and circumstantial testimony owing to the nature of this crime, added to the pertinent logical inferences,114 and their relationship to a general practice of disappearances.115 74. In light of the arguments presented by the Commission and the representatives, the body of evidence in this case, and the absence of specific arguments by the State in this regard, the Court considers that it has been sufficiently proved that, when the massacre in the village of Los Josefinos began on April 28, 1982, José Álvaro López Mejía, Fabio González and Florenci Quej Bin were intercepted and retained by state agents who, subsequently, concealed their whereabouts, which remain unknown to date. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State violated the rights recognized in Articles 3, 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 7(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, all in relation to the obligations established in Article I(a) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of José Álvaro López Mejía, Fabio González and Florenci Quej Bin. 75. Regarding the other 11 people that, according to the representatives were also victims of forced disappearance,116 the Court notes, first, that as indicated, these individuals remain disappeared to date. The Court also notes that they were last seen alive in the village while it was under siege by members of the army and that, following the military operation, their whereabouts are unknown. To this should be added the State’s actions at the time of the massacre when it buried numerous unidentified victims in a mass grave.117 That decision, added to the negligence in the investigation of this case (see infra, Chapter VIII-2), has meant that, today, almost 40 years after the massacre, it has not been possible to identify 15 people based on the 19 skeletal remains found. The Court recalls that, according to its consistent case law, the relevant factor for a forced disappearance to cease is the determination of the victims’ whereabouts or the identification of their remains, and not the presumption of their death, 118 and this has not happened in the instant case. Consequently, the Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, supra, para. 129, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 370, para. 169. 112 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, supra, para. 131, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 169. 113 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, supra, para. 130, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 169. 114 Cf. Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of March 15, 1989. Series C No. 6, para. 15, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 370, para. 169. 115 Namely, Rosendo García Sermeño, Félix Lux, Félix Salvatierra Morales, Andrea Castellanos Ceballos, Braulia Sarceño Cardona, Edelmira Girón Galbez and Paula Morales, and the children, Norma Morales Alonzo, Victoriano Salvatierra Morales, Antonio Santos Serech and Joselino García Sermeño. 116 The Court recalls that Article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons defines this as “the act of depriving a person or persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by an absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees.” 117 Cf. Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 51, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. 118 23