applicable principles, so as to determine whether or not acts by the agents of the state were consistent with the American Convention, in the terms outlined below. B.2 Matters to be examined and verified by the Inter-American Court 280. The Court recalls that it is not a criminal tribunal in which the criminal responsibility of the individual can be determined 352 and that “courts of the State are expected to examine the facts and evidence submitted in particular cases,” 353 and therefore, State responsibility under the Convention should not be confused with the criminal responsibility of private individuals. 354 Unlike 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.355 It is sufficient that the State has an obligation and that it has failed to comply with it.356 281. Thus, the instant case does not establish the innocence or guilt of the members of the “Chavín de Huántar” command, of the security forces who took part in the hostage rescue operation, or of the MRTA members. Rather, the case addresses whether the acts of the State conformed to the American Convention and whether or not extrajudicial execution took place in the process of the hostage rescue operation at two different times and in different places: first, for Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, and second, for Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza. The State’s international responsibility derives from acts or omissions by any government branch or agency, regardless of hierarchy, that violates the American Convention. It is a principle of international law that the State responds for the acts and omissions of any of its agents carried out in their official capacity, even if they are acting outside the limits of their competence.357 282. International jurisprudence has recognized the power of international courts to weigh the evidence freely, although it has always avoided a rigid rule regarding the amount of proof necessary to support the judgment, 358 and it is incumbent on the judicial body to pay close attention to the circumstances of the specific case and bear in mind the limits imposed by respect for legal certainty and procedural balance among the parties. 359 The Court cannot disregard the special significance of attributing to a State Party to the Convention the charge Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 162. 352 Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 80, and Case of the Afro-descendant communities displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270, para. 225. 353 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 122, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 162. 354 355 Cf. Case of the “White Van" (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 91, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 162. Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 112, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 162. 356 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 173, and Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 271, para. 76. 357 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 127, and Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina, supra, para. 79. 358 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 96, and Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina, supra, para. 79. 359