State authorities in a violation of the right to life. 142 Thus, it is up to the State to carry out a thorough, meaningful, and diligent investigation to prove or disprove the evidence of involvement of State agents. Where that has not happened, the Commission has accorded probative force to such circumstantial evidence when inadequately investigated. 71. In similar fashion, the Inter-American Court, having established a failure of diligence in the investigation of indications of state participation, has found it: ... reasonable to assess as evidence the indications contained in the case file ... that point to the involvement of state agents in these events, particularly those handled by the very state agencies that were in charge of the investigation which have not been disproven by the State. Reaching any other conclusion would entail allowing the State to resort to its own negligence or inefficacy [in] the criminal investigation to release itself from responsibility for the violation of Article 4(1) of the Convention.143 72. Likewise, the Court has reiterated that failure to investigate alleged violations committed against someone when there are suggestions of involvement of state agents “prevents the State from presenting a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the [facts] alleged, and disproves the arguments concerning its responsibility, with adequate probative elements.” 144 The Court has considered such failure to clarify the facts as a factor to be born in mind in accrediting alleged violations and the attendant international and responsibility.145 73. In this case, as is analyzed in detail below, the Commission finds that the State has not carried out a thorough, meaningful, and diligent investigation to prove or disprove the evidence of involvement of State agents in the murder of Vicky Hernández. The Commission notes that the Honduran State has neither outlined nor exhausted lines of inquiry that take into account the context of violence based on prejudice toward trans women sex workers in Honduras and the pattern of police violence against them. In that regard, the record suggests that the State has not even outlined or considered a hypothesis of possible participation by state agents in the events, bearing in mind the context that framed them, specifically with regard to the fact that they occurred during a curfew in which it is proven that the military maintained a strong presence and control on the streets. 74. The Commission finds that, that aside, the only line of inquiry that the State did pursue—one tending to demonstrate that the events occurred in the context of a dispute between private citizens—has not yielded any results that would disprove the evidence of involvement of state agents. 75. In light of the foregoing the Commission considers that the lack of a diligent investigation—as will be analyzed below—prevented the State from offering a satisfactory and convincing explanation based on adequate elements of proof to disprove the allegations of its agents' responsibility in the events in this case. Owing to the failings in the investigation, the Commission has nothing to counter the aforementioned strong circumstantial evidence and concludes, therefore, that the State breached its obligation to respect Vicky Hernández’s rights to life and humane treatment. Furthermore, as the incident qualifies as an act of violence based on prejudice for the victim's gender identity and expression, the Commission finds that that breach also extended to the right to privacy, the right to freedom of expression, and the principle of equal protection and nondiscrimination. 76. In addition, given the circumstances and context of this case, the IACHR considers that it involves a breach both of the duty to respect rights and of the obligation to ensure them. In relation to the latter, IACHR, Report No. 120/10, Case 12.605, Merits, Joe Luis Castillo González, Venezuela, October 22, 2010, par. 109. I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of April 3, 2009, Series C No. 196, par. 97. 144I/A Court H.R., Case of J v. Peru, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, par. 353. 145I/A Court H.R., Case of J v. Peru, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, par. 354. 142 143