and of themselves. Thus, it stated that, in the instant case, no proof had been shown of an alleged collaboration, acquiescence, or complicity, in acts or omissions, on the part of State agents. 37. With respect to the right to freedom of association, the State considered that it is not possible to infer without a reasonable doubt that the disappearance of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe formed part of a context in which trade unionists in the municipality of Puerto Nare were broadly at risk and especially vulnerable. It also reiterated that it had not been proven that the unknown individuals who perpetrated the crime had received the collaboration or acquiescence of State agents, nor that the facts formed part of a pattern of persecution of members of the SUTIMAC trade union. 38. As regards the right to life, personal liberty, and personal integrity, the State maintained that no separate proof had been shown of the alleged support, acquiescence, collaboration, or tolerance of State agents in the disappearance of Mr. Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe and that the State had in no way knowledge of a real and imminent threat. The State argued that Mr. Isaza Uribe had been detained in the municipal prison of Puerto Nare by court order and that the disappearance of the alleged victim was not attributable to the State, but rather to third parties. 39. The State reported that Mr. Alejandro Acevedo Birgue, a guard at the Puerto Nare prison, had told Criminal Investigation Court 64 and the town's Municipal Spokesperson on November 19, 1987 and September 24, 1989, respectively, that the assailants had "taken them by surprise" and had forced them to unlock the cell; that the men had covered their faces and had left FARC leaflets; and that they had taken four detainees with them, including Víctor Manuel Isaza. 40. The State stressed that detainee Horacio de Jesús Gil had told the same Court that Mario Patiño, another inmate, had told him that if by chance an opportunity to escape arose, he could accompany them and that subsequently he had said that "it had all been planned already." According to the State, Mr. Gil had declared that the assailants's faces were covered and they were wearing FARC bracelets; they had said they belonged to that guerrilla group and had come to fetch their fellow guerillas, but that anyone who wanted to could go with them. 41. In general terms, the State maintained that it cannot be held responsible for the facts in respect of which the petitioners allege violation of the right to juridical personality, life, humane treatment, personal liberty and freedom of association, established in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, and 16 of the American Convention. In addition, the State argued that it had met the obligations to investigate established in Articles 8 and 25, since investigations were carried out to the extent possible, given the complexity of the case. IV. PROVEN FACTS 42. The Commission considers it pertinent to recall that according to the case law of the interAmerican system, the criteria for assessing evidence are less rigid than for domestic legal systems and it has maintained that it may “weigh the evidence freely.”2 In that regard, the Inter-American Court has found that “it must apply an assessment of the evidence that takes into account the gravity of attributing international responsibility to a State and that, despite this, is able to create confidence in the truth of the facts that have been alleged.”3 The Court has held that it is “legitimate to use circumstantial evidence, indications and presumptions to found a judgment, provided that conclusions consistent with the facts can be inferred from them.”4 In particular, indicia and presumptive evidence are of special importance in a case of alleged forced 2 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, pars. 127 and 128. I/A Court H.R., Case of Gonzalez Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012, Series C No. 240, par. 132. 3 4 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012, Series C No. 240, par. 134, citing Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009, Series C No. 21, par. 197.