25 prepared during the investigation of the events of the instant case and determine individual responsibility, whose definition corresponds to domestic criminal tribunals, but rather evaluate the acts and omission of State agents, pursuant to the evidence submitted by the parties. 80. In the instant case, the Commission and the representatives find that the conduct of a FUSEP agent is an indication sufficient to conclude that there is direct State responsibility in the deprivation of life suffered by Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández. In that regard, they agree that “it is clear that the execution of Mrs. Kawas-Fernández was the result of prior planning” which involved two perpetrators and an unspecified number of instigators, accomplices and concealing parties.” In this sense, they alleged that the actions taken by the FUSEP sergeant “proved the direct relation to the murder of Mrs. Jeannette Kawas.” 81. The State, on the other hand, rejected the aforementioned argument and held that the investigation of the events of the instant case remains open and there are various hypotheses regarding the responsibility for the deprivation of the life of Mrs. KawasFernández; therefore, no direct responsibility should be imposed upon the State for the acts of its agents. 82. International case law has upheld the power of international tribunals to freely evaluate evidence, without adopting a strict assessment of the quantum necessary to provide the grounds for a judgment,95 and it is essential for the jurisdictional body to pay attention to the circumstances of the specific case and to take into account the limits imposed by respect of legal certainty and procedural balance between the parties.96 83. The Court cannot ignore the special relevance of imposing upon a State Party to the Convention the responsibility for performing or tolerating within its territory the performance of practices such as those explained in the instant case. Therefore, the Court will now perform an evidence appraisal test that takes that circumstance into account while being capable of establishing the truth of the events alleged.97 84. First of all, the Court notes that the authorities in charge of the investigation agree that the murder of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández was the product of careful planning in which people from the area were involved. The investigation report submitted by the Tela Bureau of Criminal Investigations stated that, “in murdering Janeth Kawas, the people who performed the deed were guided and advised in a manner such that they already knew she was by herself and which room she would be in, and the exact time at which it would go down; some of the people who saw it, particularly the person who was with her, has not said 95 Cf. Case of Velasquez-Rodriguez. Merits, supra note 17, para. 127. Cf. also Case of the Miguel CastroCastro Prison, supra note 88, para. 184; Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 89, para. 86. 96 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panamá. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 71; Case of Tiu Tojín V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 38, and Case of Perozo et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para. 95. 97 Cf. Case of Velasquez-Rodriguez. Merits, supra note 17, para. 129; Case of Ríos et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para. 136, and Case of Perozo et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para. 148.