128. On April 9, 2008, the Second Court dismissed the case apparently due to “the expiry of the criminal action”, as noted by the Commission, and which was not disputed by the State.184 VI MERITS VI. 1 DEPRIVATION OF THE LIFE OF NÉSTOR JOSÉ UZCÁTEGUI (RIGHT TO LIFE) A. - Arguments 129. The Commission argued that the State violated the rights recognized in Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Néstor José Uzcátegui, given that he was extrajudicially executed by State police forces, as shown by the evidence contained in the domestic court record. It pointed out, in particular, that i) the facts reveal a substantial level of consistency and uniformity on the main points made in the testimonies rendered by relatives who were present at the time of the events; ii) there is no expert evidence that Néstor José Uzcátegui was carrying a weapon at the time of his death or that he fired against police officers; iii) there is evidence indicating that at least one of the shots was received from the top down; iv) the State did not immediately take the appropriate measures following the events, nor has it carried out a timely, efficient and diligent investigation; v) there is considerable and consistent evidence of a pattern of obstruction of justice by State authorities; and vi) Néstor José Uzcátegui’s death has features consistent with the context of extrajudicial killings in Venezuela. 130. The representatives added that the State had committed the aforementioned violation by failing to adopt mechanisms of control to prevent a disproportionate use of force by State agents, which in this case translated into a lack of domestic legislation to regulate the proper use of firearms by police officers. Likewise, the representatives recalled that at the time these events took place, there existed a pattern of extrajudicial killings by police groups in Venezuela and in the State of Falcón, which remain unpunished, and therefore the facts of the case are not isolated events, but rather part of a general climate of violence and impunity that primarily victimizes young men from low-income backgrounds in Venezuela. They further noted that this situation results in an aggravated violation of the right to life by the State. 131. The State alleged that the police officers acted lawfully in fulfillment of their duties and to protect the lives of their colleagues, given that Néstor José Uzcátegui had fired at a police unit, which led it to request police backup. It emphasized that such actions are within the grounds of justification set forth in the Venezuela’s Criminal Code. Furthermore, the State reaffirmed that there was no state policy in Venezuela to cover up violations of the right to life, that the Venezuelan Constitution requires the State to train law enforcement agencies and that it is essential to provide security while respecting people’s rights to life, humane treatment and a fair trial. B. - Considerations of the Court 132. In light of what it has stated in its case law with respect to the right to life, the duty of the States to guarantee said right185, the use of force by its agents186, the duty 184 Despite the fact that on several occasions the State was asked to provide the case file relating to the slander suit against Luis Enrique Uzcátegui, this was not provided to the Court. 31