IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. The right to life102 (Article 4.1) and humane treatment103 (article 5.1) in relation to Article 104 1.1 of the American Convention and articles 1105, 6106 and 8107 of the IACPPT. 1. General standards on the right to life, integrity and the prohibition of torture in cases related to alleged extrajudicial executions 60. The Commission has established that “extrajudicial or summary executions are characterized by being deliberate and illegitimate deprivations of life on the part of State agents, generally acting under order or at least the consent or acquiescence of the authorities. Therefore, extrajudicial executions are illegal actions committed by those who have been given power originally intended to protect and guarantee the safety and life of the people.”108 61. In cases in which there is controversy regarding the state participation in serious human rights violations, the Commission has indicated that, given the existence of signs that imply a direct attribution of international responsibility from the State, the authorities in charge of the investigation shall make all the necessary efforts to clarify the possible responsibilities or connections of state authorities in a violation to the right to life.109 In this way, the State has the obligation to carry out a detailed, serious and diligent investigation to determine the veracity or distort the signs of the participation of state agents. Otherwise, the Commission has granted probative value to evidence that has not been duly investigated. 110 62. In the same line, the Court has reiterated that the lack of investigation of alleged violations committed to a person when there are signs of the participation of state agents, “prevents the State from presenting a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the alleged [events] and distort the allegations over its responsibility by means of adequate probative elements.” 111 In this way, the Court has perceived that the signs of the participation of state agents, before the lack of clarification and investigation 112, gather probative value given that “concluding otherwise would allow the State to rely on the negligence and ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation to escape from its responsibility for the violation of Article 4.1 of the Convention.” 113 Article 4 of the Convention establishes: 1. Every person has the right to have his life respected. (…) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life. (…) 103 Article 5 of the American Convention establishes: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 104 Article 1.1 of the American Convention establishes: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. 105 Article 1 of the IACPPT establishes: The State Parties undertake to prevent and punish torture in accordance with the terms of this Convention. 106 Article 6 of the IACPPT establishes: In accordance with the terms of Article 1, the States Parties shall take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdiction. The States Parties shall ensure that all acts of torture and attempts to commit torture are offenses under their criminal law and shall make such acts punishable by severe penalties that take into account their serious nature. Likewise, the States Parties shall take effective measures to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment within their jurisdiction. 107 Article 8 of the IACPPT establishes: The States Parties shall guarantee that any person making an accusation of having been subjected to torture within their jurisdiction shall have the right to an impartial examination of his case. Likewise, if there is an accusation or wellgrounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, the States Parties shall guarantee that their respective authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal process. After all the domestic legal procedures of the respective State and the corresponding appeals have been exhausted, the case may be submitted to the international fora whose competence has been recognized by that State. 108 IACHR, Report No. 25/02, Case 11.763, Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre, Guatemala, Case 11.763, from February 28, 2002, para. 114. 109 IACHR, Report No. 120/10, Case 12.605, Merits, Joe Luis Castillo González, Venezuela, October 22, 2010, para. 109. 110 IACHR, Report No. 100/17. Merits. Juan Francisco Arrom Shuhurt and others. Paraguay. September 5, 2017. Para. 189 and ss. 111 I/A Court of H.R., Caso J. Vs. Peru. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 353. 112 I/A Court of H.R., Caso J. Vs. Peru. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 354. 113 I/A Court of H.R., Case Kawas Fernández Vs. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009, Series C No. 196, para. 97. 102 13