25 inferred from them.130 In this regard, this Court has indicated that, in principle, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof regarding the facts on which his or her allegations are based. However, it has highlighted that, in human rights proceedings, the defense of the State cannot rest on the impossibility of the plaintiff to adduce evidence, when it is the State that has control of the means to clarify events that occurred within its territory.131 96. The Court notes that the present case, unlike others before this Court, did not happen in the context of a systematic and generalized practice of forced disappearances, political persecution or other violations of human rights. Therefore, it is not possible to use the context to corroborate other evidence.132 There is also no evidence in this case that shows that the alleged victims were in custody of state agents before the alleged events occurred.133 Therefore, a presumption against the State in relation to what happened is not applicable. In this regard, contrary to what was indicated by the Commission, the State does not have the obligation to present an alternative thesis about what happened to the alleged victims. 97. On the other hand, in this case the evidence presented by the representatives and the Commission refer primarily to the alleged participation of certain state agents identified by the alleged victims, who were investigated by the domestic authorities. The Court will analyze the conclusions of the investigation, which examined evidence related to the possible participation of said state agents in the alleged violations of the rights of Messrs. Arrom Suhurt and Martí Méndez. 98. Taking into account the foregoing, as well as the arguments of the parties, the Court will proceed to examine: 1) the information that aims to demonstrate the alleged state participation in the present case, and 2) the conclusions of the criminal investigation carried out. B.1 Information that aims to demonstrate the alleged state participation 99. The case file includes: i) statements by the alleged victims; ii) statements of persons who claim to have witnessed the moment of the arrest of the alleged victims by state agents; iii) statements from people who affirm that they have received information on the participation of state agents in general, and iv) information on the houses where the alleged victims were detained. B.1.a Statements by the alleged victims 100. In the instant case, the alleged victims have made various statements about what happened. The first statements were given to the press just after leaving the house on January 30, 2002. The Telefuturo video shows that after the release, a journalist asked Anuncio Martí Méndez if he could recognize those who took him, to which he replies: “we don't know”, then Juan Arrom Suhurt interrupts him saying that: “it seems that they were from the Judicial Investigation office, they said so. No, we don't know, they had us hooded almost all day.”134 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 130 and 131, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 370, para. 169. 131 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 135, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 163. 132 See, for example, Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 360. 133 See, for example, Case of Munárriz Escobar et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 20, 2018. Series C No. 355. 134 Cf. Canal Telefuturo, video of the Rescue of Juan Arrom and Anuncio Martí of January 30, 2002, (evidence file, folder of audiovisual material, “file01”). 130