about the same time is striking, since it points to a specific, violent situation at the time of Mr. Movilla’s disappearance or thereabouts.152 132. In their testimony, C.O.G., G.C.M, O.I.G., and M.Y.M.C. also mentioned the unusual circumstances near the Colegio John F. Kennedy on the morning of May 13, 1993. The first witness (supra para. 92) mentions that parents and students spoke of the presence of motorcyclists who had “taken [someone] away.” The second (supra para. 82) refers to the arrest of a swarthy person of “average” build, approximately 1.60 m tall, 153 which, in general terms, coincides with the description of Mr. Movilla.154 The third witness, who at the time was the Principal of the Colegio John F. Kennedy (supra para. 77), states that children and parents said that, before 08:00 hours, they had seen people dressed in black, with helmets and automatic weapons. M.Y.M.C.’s statement (supra para. 92) mentions that at least one person was seen dressed in black, with a helmet, armed and on a motorcycle, and that children told a teacher that they had witnessed a “kidnapping.” The last two witnesses also mention that someone fired shots in the air, and M.Y.M.C.’s statement adds that the person in question was detained by police officers. There are other statements referring, in the same context, to a person “being kidnapped,” and to the presence of a taxi, which someone was forced into against his will (supra para. 77). Although the various statements differ, taken together they confirm that anomalous circumstances occurred on the day that Mr. Movilla’s disappearance began, in the vicinity of the place where he was last seen. 133. Of the aspects noted above, State intelligence agencies’ surveillance of Mr. Movilla prior to his disappearance is especially important. Bearing in mind the context of political violence that even included acts of forced disappearance, and in which State authorities identified members of leftist political groups as “the enemy within,” it is credible, under the rules of evidence referred to above (supra paras. 121 and 122), that Mr. Movilla’s disappearance can be attributed to the State. 134. This assessment is reinforced by the internal actions. Firstly, because, nearly 29 years on, the investigations have not yielded an alternative hypothesis. 155 And, secondly, the authorities’ most recent investigations have linked P.J.P.D. to the proceedings, who, as has been established, served as an informant for State intelligence agencies. This Court has considered “the State’s failure to clarify the facts [as] a sufficient and reasonable element to lend weight to the evidence and belief that a forced disappearance was perpetrated.”156 Moreover, as has already been pointed out (supra para. 122), it is not necessary, in order to establish a violation of rights under the Convention, to prove the State’s responsibility beyond any reasonable doubt, nor to identify the agents who committed the violations. Rather, it is sufficient to confirm that actions or omissions by the State have allowed the violation to be committed, or that the State has failed to fulfill its obligations. 135. All things considered, within the framework of its jurisdiction and functions and based on the evidence examined, the Court finds that it has been established, firstly, that Pedro Julio 152 The Court recalls what expert Yepes said in his oral testimony during the public hearing on February 15, 2022, to the effect that simulation or distraction techniques were used in Colombia in cases of disappearance linked to military intelligence officers. 153 Cf. PGN, Statement by G.C.M. of May 25, 1993 (evidence file, Annex 8 to the Merits Report, folios 29 and 30). 154 This emerges from the third statement, that of M.Y.M.C. (cf. PGN, Statement by M.Y.M.C. of April 12, 1996 (evidence file, Annex 59 to the Merits Report, folios 195 to 197). And from the intelligence notes on Mr. Movilla (cf. Directorate of Military Intelligence. Pages of National Army notes containing general information about Pedro Movilla, dated May 28, 1993 (evidence file, Annex 6 to the Merits Report, folios 25 and 25). 155 With regard to the State’s highlighting of acts of violence or disappearance committed by guerrilla groups (supra para. 114), the Court recalls what has already been stated (supra paras. 67, 124 and 125). 156 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, paras. 169 and 170; Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 93. 36