24 72. Regarding testimonial evidence, this Court has said the criteria for evaluating evidence in an international human rights tribunal are endowed with special characteristics, so that the investigation into a State’s international responsibility for human rights violations bestows on the Court a greater latitude to use logic and experience in evaluating the oral testimony that it hears on the pertinent facts15. 73. In particular, with regard to the statements of the witnesses who were not present at the events, the Court has considered that they should be evaluated in a broad sense as sources of information on the general context of the facts in the corresponding case16. 74. With specific regard to the evidence of torture, the Court deems it pertinent to state that, in order to establish if torture has been inflicted and its scope, all the circumstances of the case should be taken into consideration, such as the nature and context of the respective aggressions, how they were inflicted, during what period of time, the physical and mental effects and, in some case, the sex, age and state of health of the victims17. 75. Lastly, the Court has maintained that [u]like domestic criminal law, it is not necessary to determine the perpetrators’ culpability or intentionality in order to establish that the rights enshrined in the Convention have been violated, nor is it essential to identify individually the agents to whom the acts of violation are attributed. The sole requirement is to demonstrate that the State authorities supported or tolerated infringement of the rights recognized in the Convention. Moreover, the State’s international responsibility is also at issue when it does not take the necessary steps under its domestic law to identify and, where appropriate, punish the author of such violations18. VII PROVEN FACTS 76. After examining the documents, the statements of the witnesses and the reports of the expert witnesses, together with the arguments of the State and the Commission during this proceeding, the Court considers that the facts referred to in this section have been proved. 77. The alleged victims, Henry Giovanni Contreras, 18 years of age; Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, 20 years of age; Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval, 15 years of age, Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes, 17 years of age, and Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales, also 17 years of age, were “street children”, friends, and lived on 18th Street, between 4th and 5th Avenues in Zone 1 of Guatemala City; in this general 15. Castillo Páez case. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 39 and Loayza Tamayo case. Judgment of September, 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 42. 16. Cf. Blake case. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 46. 17. Cf. Eur. Court H. R., Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom Judgment of 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247-C, p. 59, § 30; Eur. Court H. R., Case Soering v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 39, § 100; Eur. Court H. R., Case Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, § 162, and Eur. Court H. R., Case Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, pp. 14-15, §§ 29-30. 18. Paniagua Morales et al. case, supra note 13, para. 91.