even said to be cooperation ties, for instance, through the use of official vehicles.” The Court notes that the indications referred to by the Commission come from the statements of two people who were “interviewed” at police headquarters (supra paras. 59 and 60). In addition to these, an accusation was later made by a citizen (supra para. 96). 110. In relation to the foregoing, the Court has stated that, according to the basic principle of the law on international State responsibility51, every State is internationally responsible for acts or omissions that violate the human rights recognized in the Convention and that can be attributed, under international law, to any of its branches or organs.52 111. The Court has also held that the international responsibility of the State may arise from human rights violations committed by individuals or third parties, in the context of the State's obligations to ensure respect for human rights among individuals. 53 What is decisive is to determine “whether a particular violation [...] has taken place with the support or acquiescence of the public administration, or if it has acted in a way that the violation occurred in the absence of prevention or with impunity.”54 112. In order to determine whether a violation of the right enshrined in the Convention has occurred, it is not necessary to establish, as it is under domestic criminal law, the guilt of the perpetrators or their intention, nor is it necessary to individually identify the agents to whom such violations are attributed.55 It is sufficient to demonstrate that there has been support or acquiescence of the State in violation of the rights recognized in the Convention.56 51 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, in Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [based on the report of the Sixth Commission (A/56/589 and Corr.1)] 56/83. Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, 85th plenary session, December 12, 2001, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 and corrections (A/56/10 and Corr.1 and 2), Article 2: “Elements of an internationally wrongful act of a State- There is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting of an action or omission: a) is attributable to the State under international law, and b) is a violation of an international obligation of State, and Article 4: “Conduct of Organs of a State. 1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central Government or of a territorial unit of the State. 2. Any organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal law of the State”. 52 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 170, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and relatives v. Colombia, supra, para. 125. 53 Cf. Case of the Massacre of Mapiripán v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 111, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 77. Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, supra, Article 14.3: “The breach of an international obligation requiring a State to prevent a given event occurs when the event occurs and extends over the entire period during which the event continues and remains not in conformity with that obligation.” 54 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodriguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 173, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and relatives v. Colombia, supra, para. 186. 55 Cf. Case of the “White Van (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 91, and Case of the Massacre of Dos Erres v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 197 56 Cf. Case of the “White Van (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. supra, para. 91, and Case of Zambrano Vélez and et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 104. In order to consider factors such as support, tolerance or acquiescence of the State toward conduct that violates human rights, the Court has considered various circumstances, including, for example, the following: the confirmation of links between government forces and paramilitary groups (Cf. Case of the “Massacre of Mapiripán” v. Colombia, supra para. 123); or “various actions and omissions carried out in a coordinated or concerted manner” by different State organizations and bodies, so as to enable the violation of rights (Cf. Case of Perozo et al. v. 27