identify, individually, the agents to which the violations are attributed. 161 It is sufficient that the State has an obligation that it has failed to comply with; 162 in other words, that this unlawful act is attributed to it. 163 Indeed, it is not incumbent on the Court to examine the hypotheses regarding authorship developed during the investigation of the facts of the instant case and, consequently, to determine individual responsibilities, the complete definition of which corresponds to the domestic criminal courts, but rather to evaluate the acts or omissions of State agents, based on the evidence submitted by the parties. 164 79. The Court recalls that international courts have wide-ranging faculties to examine and assess evidence, based on sound judicial discretion, the rules of logic, and experience, and do not have to adopt a rigid determination of the quantum necessary to found a judgment. 165 Nevertheless, it is essential that the jurisdictional organ pays attention to the circumstances of the specific case and takes into account the limits imposed by respect for legal certainty and the procedural balance of the parties. 166 Furthermore, the Court has established that it is legitimate to use circumstantial evidence, indications and presumptions, provided that they lead to consistent conclusions on the facts. 167 Moreover, the Court cannot disregard the special significance of attributing to a State Party to the Convention the charge of having executed or tolerated on its territory violations such as those described in the instant case. Therefore, the Court must assess the evidence in a way that takes these elements into account and that, also, is able to create the conviction of the truth of the alleged facts. 168 80. The Court observes that the evidence provided in this case reveals a series of indications regarding the participation of State agents in the murder of Mr. Gutiérrez, as well as in the obstruction of the investigation. 81. First, during the preliminary investigation stage of the criminal case (supra paras. 45 and 46), on September 14 and 22, 1994, the male and female eyewitnesses declared before the Commissioner in charge of the investigation and the investigating judge, that they were on board the train when the murder of Assistant Commissioner Gutiérrez took place, and that two individuals participated in it, regarding whom they provided the description. The male eyewitness affirmed that he knew both individuals and knew that they acted as police agents, and the female eyewitness stated that one of these individuals told her that they 161 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra, para. 110, and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 119. 162 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 113, and Case of Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 27, 2012. Series C No. 256, para. 112. 163 Art. 2 of “Articles on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, prepared by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, annexed to resolution 56/83 adopted by the General Assembly [based on the report of the Sixth Committee (A/56/589 and Corr.1)]. Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts”, 85th plenary meeting, 12 December 2001, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 and corrigendum (A/56/10 and Corr.1 and 2). 2 Ibid., paras. 72 and 73, which covers international use in this matter. 164 Cf. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra, para. 87, and Case of Castillo González et al., supra, para. 113. 165 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 127, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 184. 166 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 96, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization), supra, para. 58. 167 Cf. Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, paras. 136 and 137, and Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.), supra, para. 173. 168 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 129, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 70. 33