172. The Court also recalls that Article 5(2) of the American Convention establishes that all those deprived of their liberty “have the right to live in detention conditions that are compatible with their personal dignity.”247 173. Regarding the assessment of the evidence, the Court underlines that its criteria are less rigid that in the case of domestic legal systems.248 The Court must make an assessment of the evidence that takes into account the seriousness of the attribution of international responsibility to a State and that, despite this, is capable of establishing the truth of the allegations in a convincing manner.249 In cases such as this one, it is not necessary for the responsibility of the State to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt or for the agents attributed with the violations to be identified individually;250 rather, it is sufficient to show that acts and omissions have been verified that have allowed the perpetration of those violations, or that the State had an obligation that it failed to fulfill.251 174. In addition, the Court recalls that the use of circumstantial evidence, indicia and presumptions to substantiate a judgment is legitimate, provided they lead to conclusions consistent with the facts.252 In this regard, the Court has indicated that, in principle, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the facts on which his arguments are based. However, it has stressed that, contrary to domestic criminal law, in proceedings on human rights violations, the State’s defense cannot rest on the defendant’s impossibility of providing evidence when it is the State that controls the means to clarify acts that have taken place within its territory.253 B.2. The acts of torture and ill-treatment during the raids and the detentions B.2.1. Acts that occurred during the raids 175. The facts of the case reveal (supra paras. 53 to 70) that during the raids on the houses located at No. 2319 Las Rosas Street, Nos. 2523/2525 Presbítero Medina, No. 75 Cívica Avenue, No. 1365 Juan Manuel Cáceres Passage, and in the home of Patricia Gallardo Cruz, the police acted with violence. Without differentiating between suspects and family members, children and pregnant women, they proceeded to beat, insult and interrogate all those present in the homes, using disproportionate force. B.2.2. The forensic medical examinations performed in the PTJ 247 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, paras. 126 and 138, and Case of González et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 142. 248 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 127 and 128, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 370, para. 168. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 129, and Case of the Massacre of the Village of Los Josefinos v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 3, 2021. Series C No. 442, para. 73. 249 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 91, and Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 360, para. 138. 250 251 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 172 and 173, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 168. 252 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 130, and Case of Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 422, para. 99. 253 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 135, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 163. 51