54 143. This analysis must be made taking into consideration what has been said about the State’s duty to act with strict diligence to ensure the rights of girl children (supra para. 134). Also, as established by this Court’s case law, in order to determine that a violation of the rights recognized in the Convention has occurred, it is not necessary to prove the State’s responsibility beyond any reasonable doubt or to identify individually the agents to whom the violations are attributed;238 rather it is sufficient to prove that acts or omissions have been verified that have allowed the perpetration of these violations or that, with regard to them, the State had an obligation which it has failed to meet.239 B.1.1. Existence of a dangerous situation for María Isabel Veliz Franco 144. Having established the foregoing, it should be underlined that it must be assumed as a real possibility that, when the State became aware of the disappearance of María Isabel Veliz Franco, she was alive and in great danger. In this regard, the body of evidence does not reveal that the time of her death was determined during the investigation, and the only indications in this regard suggest that she had not died before 4 p.m. on December 17, 2001, when the PNC Investigation Service formally received the report presented by the girl’s mother (supra para. 95). To the contrary, inconclusively, the existing evidence indicates that she died during the early hours of December 18, 2001 (supra para. 98 and 111). 145. In addition, given the characteristics of the events and the circumstances in which the body was found, it can be assumed that María Isabel Veliz Franco suffered ill-treatment before she succumbed to a violent death. Nevertheless, there is no conclusive evidence that she remained deprived of liberty prior to the moment at which she suffered the acts that resulted in her death. Therefore, the Court finds no evidence to justify the arguments connecting acts or omissions by the State to the alleged violation of her right to personal liberty protected by Article 7 of the American Convention. 146. In relation to the State’s awareness of this dangerous situation, it is necessary to consider the particular circumstances of the case as regards the way in which the State was informed of the relevant facts. The proven facts reveal that, based on the report filed by Rosa Elvira Franco on December 17, 2001, the authorities knew that María Isabel was missing and that almost 20 hours had passed, including a whole night, since the time at which she should have returned home. They also knew, owing to this report, that the girl’s mother had already looked for her unsuccessfully. Mrs. Franco Sandoval had also indicated that, according to the information she had been able to obtain, it was probable that, during the evening of the day before the report, her daughter had met up with a man who she (Rosa Elvira Franco) did not know, but only had suggestions about his possible name. 147. Based on the account given in the report filed by Mrs. Franco Sandoval, and also considering that María Isabel was a girl child and that, as indicated (supra para. 74), the incident took place during a time when the annual figures for homicidal violence in Guatemala were increasing more that the population growth, the Court concludes that the State authorities should have understood the events reported by Rosa Elvira Franco as an indication that the child’s rights would probably be violated. Even though this report did not indicate explicitly that María Isabel had been the victim of an illegal act, it was reasonable to infer that she was in danger. The Court understands that, in the context of the strict due diligence that the State should observe in order to ensure the rights to life and to personal integrity of girl children (supra para. 134), in the circumstances of the case, the information provided by Rosa Elvira Franco should have been considered an indication of the real possibility that María Isabel’s life would be in danger in order to implement preventive actions. 238 Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 91, and Case of J., supra, para. 305. 239 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 173, and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 118.