10 show that agents of the State were responsible for the violations committed against the victim. In this respect, the Court considers it appropriate to indicate that, in order to establish that there has been a violation of the rights embodied in the Convention, it is not necessary to determine, as it is under domestic criminal law, the guilt of the authors or their intention, nor is it necessary to identify individually the agents who are attributed with the violations.12 42. The Court observes that the declarations of the State are ambiguous with regard to the scope of the international acknowledgement of the facts and their legal consequences. At this point, the Court considers that it is appropriate to indicate that, in the international proceeding, the principle of good faith should rule, to avoid any ambiguous statement that could lead to confusion,13 as has occurred in this case. 43. Owing to the above, the Court takes note of the State’s partial acknowledgement of international responsibility with regard to non-compliance with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, by failing to respect and ensure the rights recognized therein. 44. Likewise, with regard to the facts of the case sub judice and their legal consequences, the Court considers that, in the exercise of its authority under Article 54 of its Rules of Procedure, it is admissible to take into account other elements that allow the truth of the facts and thus their legal classification to be established; accordingly, it exercises its responsibility to protect human rights by applying the pertinent norms of international treaty law and general international law. Consequently, the Court will now examine and assess all the elements of evidence, according to the rule of sound judgment, to arrive at a decision on the alleged facts; it will examine the merits of the case to establish the alleged violations of Articles 5, 7, 11, 13, 8 and 25 of the American Convention and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the InterAmerican Convention against Torture; and it will establish the corresponding reparations in accordance with Article 63(1) of the American Convention. VI THE EVIDENCE 45. Before examining the evidence received, in light of the provisions of Articles 43 and 44 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court will draw some conclusions applicable to the specific case, most of which have been developed in its case law. 46. The adversarial principle which respects the right of the parties to defend themselves applies in matters pertaining to evidence; it is one of the principles of Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure concerning the time at which evidence should be submitted to ensure equality between the parties.14 12 Cf. The “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C, No. 63, Para. 75; and The “White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.), Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 91. 13 Cf. Cantoral Benavides case. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 3, 1998. Series C No. 40, para. 30. 14 Cf. Bulacio case. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 40; Juan Humberto Sánchez case. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 28; and “Five Pensioners” case. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 64.