32. The State indicated that the act of practicing the profession of journalism cannot per se be considered a real and immediate risk. It stated in this regard that the "risk" that must exist in order to presume State responsibility for the acts of third parties must be individual, real, and imminent, and that this was not the situation in Mr. Carvajal’s case. It further stated that there is no record of any complaints of threats filed by Nelson Carvajal or his relatives, or any indication that the competent authorities had prior knowledge of the supposed real, imminent, and individual threat posed by third parties. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the American Convention 33. The Colombian State asserted that there was no violation of Article 13 in its individual aspect, since Carvajal had all the appropriate means and guarantees to state his opinions and the results of the journalistic investigations he was conducting, without any restriction or limitation. As for the societal aspect of the right to freedom of expression, the State contended that Carvajal had the opportunity in his work to exchange ideas and opinions with his colleagues in the practice of his profession as a journalist and to engage with the community and his radio audience. The State affirmed that the violent death of a journalist does not automatically entail the violation of the right to freedom of thought and expression. Additionally, it stated that the outcomes of the domestic proceedings did not provide “certainty with respect to the assertion that Mr. Carvajal’s death was directly related to his journalistic activities.” IV. ESTABLISHED FACTS 34. In application of Article 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission the IACHR will examine the arguments and evidence provided by the petitioner and the State, as well as publicly available information.3 The latter may include laws, orders, and other regulatory acts in force in Colombia at the time of the events at issue in this case. 35. The Commission notes that the State has maintained that it is not responsible for the violations alleged by the petitioner. The parties submitted consistent information on the death, and the initial facts are not in dispute. 36. The Commission additionally observes that, as the Inter-American Court has established since its first judgment, the criteria for the weighing of evidence by an international body are less formal than in domestic legal systems. The Court has held that, due to the special seriousness of attributing human rights violations to a State Party to the Convention, the human rights protection bodies must apply a standard of proof that takes account of that seriousness and, without prejudice thereto, is capable of establishing the truth of the allegations in a convincing manner.4 Along these lines, the Court has established that “The practice of international and domestic courts shows that direct evidence, whether testimonial or documentary, is not the only type of evidence that may be legitimately considered in reaching a decision. Circumstantial evidence, indicia, and presumptions may be considered, so long as they lead to conclusions consistent with the facts.”5 The Court has further stated that “In contrast to domestic criminal law, in proceedings to determine human rights violations the State cannot rely on the defense that the complainant has failed to present evidence when it cannot be obtained without the State's cooperation.”6 3 Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, Article 43(1). “The Commission shall deliberate on the merits of the case, to which end it shall prepare a report in which it will examine the arguments, the evidence presented by the parties, and the information obtained during hearings and on-site observations. In addition, the Commission may take into account other information that is a matter of public knowledge.” 4 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4. Para. 128 et seq.; IACHR. Report No. 37/10. Case 12.308. Manoel Leal de Oliveira (Brazil). March 17, 2010. Para. 56. 5 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4. Para. 130; Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5. Paras. 133-36; Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of March 15, 1989. Series C No. 6. Paras. 130-33; Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16. Para. 49. 6 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4. Para. 135; Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194. Para. 98; [continues …]