29 after the event he saw the several times together in the white double-cab [T]oyota”; therefore “the Prosecutor’s Office [was requested] to issue a warrant of arrest against sergeant Ismael Perdomo[, since] he appears to be the person who planned the murder.”113 94. Furthermore, in its technical-legal report, the Attorney General’s Office found that “sergeant Perdomo arrives immediately at the crime scene since, according to him, the police squad was covering a fake report on robbery of one of the banks of the city of Tela. This situation was challenged by the representatives of the banks in that city, who told the agents that on that day no robbery had been attempted at any bank branch.”114 Also, “the team established that from February 3 to 4, 1995, i.e. 3 days before the murder, a person named Mario Pineda, also known as Chapín ((identified as a former member of a death squad known as Mano Blanca, and allegedly protected by Coronel Amaya), and Coronel Mario Amaya, met at the offices of the Police in Tela, with sergeant Ismael Perdomo.”115 95. However, the Court has held that the use of circumstantial evidence, indication and assumptions to support the judgment as legitimate, “provided they can be used to infer consistent conclusions about the facts.”116 In that regard, the Court has held that the plaintiff should, in principle, undertake the burden of proof regarding the facts connected with its arguments; however, the Court has highlighted that, as opposed to domestic criminal law, in proceedings for violations of human rights, the defense of the State may not lie on the impossibility of the plaintiff to produce evidence, when it is the State that has control of the means to clarify the events occurred within its territory.117 96. It is clear that, in the instant case, which involves the violent death of a person, the investigation initiated was to be carried out in a manner such that it could guarantee the due analysis of the responsibility hypothesis thus arrived at, particularly those which lead to suspect the participation of State agents.118 Honduras has not advised this Court of any progress in the investigation carried out by the State authorities which may disprove the indications pointing to the involvement of State agents in the murder of Mrs. KawasFernández. The Court notes that, on the contrary, the defense of the State is supported in the lack of diligence in a judicial proceeding to clearly assess criminal responsibility for the death of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, which lack of diligence can only be attributed to its own judicial authorities (infra para. 114). 113 Cf. Investigation report by the General Bureau of Criminal Investigations of October 30, 2003, signed by Daniel Barahona, supra nota 31. 114 Cf. Technical Legal Report No. DCAT-SATJ- AFS 022/2003, supra note 31. 115 Cf. Technical Legal Report No. DCAT-SATJ- AFS 022/2003, supra note 31. 116 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 17, para. 130; Case of Ríos et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para. 101; and Case of Perozo et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para. 112. 117 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 17, para. 135; Case of Yatama V. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para 134; and Case of Ríos et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para. 198. 118 Cf. Technical Legal Report No. DCAT-SATJ- AFS 022/2003, supra note 31.