113. However, the attribution of responsibility to a State for the acts of State agents or individuals must be based on the specificities and circumstances of each case. 57 In this regard, the Court has stated that it must adhere to the principles of sound judgment, within the relevant regulatory framework.58 Thus, under these terms, international Courts have broad powers to consider and assess the evidence, according to the rules of logic and based on experience, without being subject to the rules on weight of evidence.59 Circumstantial evidence, indications and presumptions may be used provided that these lead to conclusions consistent with the facts.60 114. Bearing in mind the above, the Court considers that the points mentioned suggest, in the case of the police “interviews” recorded in a report of September 15, 2003 (supra. paras. 59 and 60), that a public official was aware of the activities of paramilitary groups, which had presumably carried out the attack and, in the case of the public complaint filed on May 18, 2007 (supra para. 96), attribute the intellectual responsibility for the attack to the same official. Therefore, since there are no other elements in the body of evidence to demonstrate the possible involvement or knowledge of agents of the State regarding the attack, the Court considers that these comments are not entirely consistent with each other, nor sufficient and varied enough to arrive at the conclusion, based on the guidelines mentioned (supra para. 113), that State agents were involved in the attack, or regarding the State’s acquiescence or tolerance of such acts.61 115. Consequently, the Court considers that it is not reasonable to infer, from all the evidence submitted and, in particular, from the “evidence” referred to by the Commission, that the State is responsible, through its tolerance, acquiescence or direct involvement, in the attack against Joe Castillo, Yelitze Moreno and Luis Castillo. Accordingly, in this case, the Court finds that there is insufficient evidence to determine the State’s international responsibility for the violation of Articles 4, 5 and 19 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of that instrument. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 149); or the State’s permission and protection in relation to activities that place human rights at risk (Cf. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 248). 57 Cf. Case of the “Massacre of Mapiripán” v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 113, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 129. 58 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 76, and Case of the Massacres of Río Negro v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 40. 59 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 101, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 66. 60 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 130, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and relatives v. Colombia, supra, para. 156. 61 In relation to the Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, cited by the Commission, the Court notes that the number of elements resulting in the attribution of State responsibility was qualitatively diverse. Thus, for example, in that case of the Court took into consideration elements such as confirmation that a state official had tried to obstruct the investigation into the facts, and “technical-legal” opinions from state organs which found that other State entities had not taken any action whatsoever to arrest those responsible for the incident in question. Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, paras. 84 to 94. 28