24 who was also later identified by Juan Arrom; (iv) Héctor Lacognata affirmed that the wife of the Minister of Labor, Silvio Ferreira, informed him that he was aware of the arrest of Juan Arrom and that he and Anuncio Martí would be presented to the Public Prosecutor's Office; (v) according to a press release, the Deputy Ombudsman, Héctor Raúl Marín Peralta, denounced that the prosecutors […] knew about the clandestine detention of Juan Arrom and Anuncio Martí; (vi) the journalist Aníbal Emery indicated that, during the release of Messrs. Arrom and Martí, they saw deputy officer José David Schémbori, identified by Juan Arrom as one of his torturers [...]; (vii) Juan Arrom's sisters identified José David Schémbori in the same context; (viii) Víctor Colmán and Ana Rosa Samudio denounced that state agents […] broke into their house and told them that they had detained Juan Arrom and Anuncio Martí; (ix) journalist Mónica Laneri stated that she was informed that Juan Arrom had been detained but that Commissioner González Cuquejo denied it on air, adding that she asked [prosecutor Velásquez] about the situation and he told her that Martí's situation was 'very negotiable', and (x) the statements – with unduly investigated retractions– by Esteban Centurión and Ángela Estefanía Salinas involving police officer Antonio Gamarra.” 91. The representatives indicated that Juan Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí saw and recognized various state agents, some of whom were also seen by Luis Alfonso Resck, Aníbal Emery, Cristina Arrom and María Auxiliadora Arrom. “Some of them also appear in the video and photographs taken on the day of the rescue.” They added that, in the first days “they were taken to a first house located in Villa Elisa, owned by the wife of the then Deputy Commissioner Saturnino Antonio Gamarra,” then a second house where they stayed for a day and then a third house of imprisonment “also in the city of Villa Elisa, owned by police commissioner Octavio Francisco Flores.” 92. The State argued that “the participation of state agents has not been proven,” and that there is no context or systematic pattern of disappearances in the instant case. Therefore, a presumption cannot be used to the detriment of the State. It insisted that “from the evidence contained in the four volumes of the judicial case file and thirteen volumes of the prosecutor’s investigation file, it was correctly concluded that the accused had not participated in the punishable acts investigated.” B. Considerations of the Court 93. In the present case, the representatives and the Commission argued that Juan Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí Méndez were detained, tortured, and forcibly disappeared by state agents between January 17 and 30, 2002. For its part, the State indicated that the participation of state authorities in such events has not been proven. 94. In order for a violation of the American Convention to be established, it is necessary that the acts or omissions that generated said violation be attributable to the respondent State. These acts or omissions can be of any power or organ of the State, regardless of its rank or hierarchy.129 Taking into account the existing controversy, the Court will proceed to examine whether these alleged events can be attributed to the State and later, if necessary, it will determine if they constituted violations of the American Convention and other alleged international treaties. 95. In cases such as this, where there is no direct evidence of state action, the Court has emphasized that the use of circumstantial evidence, indicia, and presumptions is legitimate and can be as the basis for a judgement, provided that consistent conclusions about the facts can be Cf. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 79, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 127. 129