65 c) the conduct of the State is worsened by other factors such as obstructions by the armed forces of normal administration of justice; reluctance of the armed forces to bring one of their members before justice in a timely manner; concern and diligence shown by them to cover up the truth and to distance themselves from assuming any responsibility; and, among others, the retroactive receipt that they made the stepfather of the alleged victim sign to demonstrate that he had been released in good conditions; these examples authorize the conclusion that the State has tolerated continuing impunity regarding the death of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Pleadings of the State 106. The State, in turn, denied having violated Article 4 of the American Convention to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez, and it pointed out that: a) the second capture of the alleged victim was not carried out by State agents, a statement that can be corroborated with evidence on record in the domestic case file; b) with respect to the death of Juan Humberto Sánchez, it has only been proven that his body was found on July 21, 1992, in a pool in the Río Negro, and there is no evidence of participation of State agents in those facts; c) when the corpse was found, an autopsy was not performed due to the advanced state of decay of the body and because there was no “legal physician” at the place; for said reason, only an examination by the judge and by the experts he appointed took place; and d) the State set in motion the jurisdictional and police functions to investigate the facts and identify those responsible. There have also been efforts to capture the alleged murderer, so as to investigate the facts and try him, to punish him if that were the case and at the appropriate legal moment. He was captured in January, 2003. Considerations of the Court 107. Article 4(1) of the American Convention sets forth that: [e]very person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 108. The Court recognizes the high evidentiary value of the testimonial and circumstantial evidence and of the pertinent logical inferences in cases of extra-legal executions, with all the difficulties regarding evidence derived from them when they are set within the framework of a practice of grave human rights violations promoted or tolerated by the State.121 This Court deems that if it is proven for the specific case 121 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 131; Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 103, paras. 47-48; Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 104, paras. 47-48; and Blake Case. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 51.