while the Truth Commission indicated that “[t]he insane taking of the temple of justice by the M-19 guerrilla movement and the disproportionate reaction of the State’s Armed Forces and Police truly constitute one of the most egregious and disturbing attacks on the institutional framework of the long history of violence experienced by Colombia.” 86 81. This Court underscores that the international jurisdiction is complementary and reinforcing in nature and that it does not perform the functions of a court of “fourth instance.” 87 In addition, it recalls that, contrary to a criminal court, it is not necessary to prove the State’s responsibility beyond any reasonable doubt in order to establish that a violation of the rights recognized in the Convention has occurred, or to identify, individually, the agents to which the violations are attributed. This Court must be convinced that acts or omissions that can be attributed to the State have occurred that have permitted the perpetration of those violations, or that the State had an obligation with which it failed to comply. Thus, for an international court, the criteria for assessing the evidence are less rigid that under the domestic legal system and the Court is able to assess the evidence freely. 88 The Court must assess the evidence in a way that takes into account the gravity of attributing international responsibility to a State and that, despite this, establishes the truth of the alleged facts in a convincing manner. 89 82. Bearing in mind these considerations, in this chapter, the Court will establish the facts of the case, based on the facts submitted to its consideration by the Commission and taking into consideration the body of evidence in the case, especially the domestic judicial decisions and the conclusions of the Truth Commission, as well as the motions and arguments brief of the representatives and the arguments of the State. The Court recalls that, in accordance with Article 41(3) of the Rules of Procedure, 90 it may consider those facts that have not been expressly denied and those claims that have not been expressly contested as accepted, without this meaning that it will automatically consider them accepted in all cases in which they are not opposed by one of the parties, and without an assessment of the specific circumstances of the case and of the body of evidence. The silence of the defendant or any elusive or ambiguous answers may be interpreted as an acceptance of the facts in the Merits Report while the contrary does not emerge during the proceedings or as a result of the Court’s conclusions. 91 83. The Court will refer to the events related to the alleged violations in this case in the following order: (A) the background to the taking of the Palace of Justice; (B) the events of 86 Informe de la Comisión de la Verdad sobre los hechos del Palacio de Justicia, 2010 (hereinafter “Report of the Truth Commission”) (evidence file, folio 419). 87 The preamble to the American Convention affirms that the international protection “reinforce[s] or complement[s] the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States.” See also, The effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights (arts. 74 and 75). Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 2, para. 31; The Word "Laws" in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/89 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, para. 26, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 61, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 140. 88 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 127 and 128, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 305. 89 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 129, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 305. 90 Article 41(3) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establishes that “[t]he Court may consider those facts that have not been expressly denied and those claims that have not been expressly contested as accepted.” 91 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 138, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 51. 32