170. The Judicial Investigator said that in the search of information “the comments of the residents of the North-Eastern part were known in the sense that on September 3rd, 1999 three young men were detained by a military patrol after they were seized and asked about the identity of those who killed three soldiers that had happened there.” She said that she knew that “the three persons who were retained were taken by a military vehicle to different places and where then found death, two in the way to al Centro with visible signs of torture and about the other, it was said that he was a subversive who was killed in a clash with the Army.”266 171. Mr. Luis Alfonso Agudelo Martínez stated that Mrs. Eneida Bolivar, who had a romantic relationship with someone from the “EPL”, told her that “three soldiers” were killed and because of that, “that same night there was a takeover of the neighborhoods by Army soldiers looking for the guerrilla and weapons.” He established that his daughter, Yamile Agudelo Peñaloza, “learned that several of her good friends were being killed because of the death of the soldiers” and said that he knew that “from 9 to 12 young women had been killed.” He added that on March 22, 2006, his “daughter Yamile went to her friend Yuli’s house and never came back” “her dead body was found on March 23, 2006 in the way to llanito in the trash site.” He noted that “it is known that the troop went to the neighborhoods to seize and detained and they took several Young persons from the neighborhood for lack of documentation or for suspicious and they disappeared.”267 b. Considerations of the Commission 172. The Commission observes that in relation to when Messrs. Quiñónez, Romero and Ramírez died, there are several elements to be taken into account to establish if the events that took place as indicated by the State, that is to say, the death of Mr. Quiñónez in the context of a clash and the deaths of Messrs. Romero and Ramírez as isolated events for which it’s not possible to attribute the State´s responsibility. When making this analysis, the Commission recalls that since Mr. Quiñónez death was a result of the use of force by State agents, the State has the obligation to give a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events and to rebut allegations over its liability, through appropriate evidentiary elements.”268 173. The Commission notes that the alleged confrontation between Mr. Quiñónez and the military is sustained fundamentally in the following evidence: testimonies of members of the military forces; the discovery of weapons alongside the corpse of Mr. Quiñónez; and the report from the “Ballistics Laboratory” that indicates that the two cartridge casings found were shot by said weapon, and gunpowder residue was also found in the bore of its barrel.” 174. In relation to what has been stated by the State, the Commission observes that firstly, no specific technical tests were conducted to determine if the gun was effectively triggered by Mr. Quiñónez. In this sense, the Commission notes that the State did not demonstrate having used all the probatory, technical and scientific mechanisms to determine the most basic element of the dispute, that is, if the death occurred in a clash and in self-defense, or if it was a result of an extrajudicial execution. For example, those of “gauntlet”, “dactiloscopy” or “atomic absorption” were some of these basic tests that could have determined if the gun was triggered by Mr. Quiñónez. 266 Annex. 88. Report from the Chief of Technical Investigations Corps, 1709 GH-CTI, October 25, 1995. Annex 10 of the petitioners’ brief received on December 6, 2010. 267Annex. 89. Statement by Mr. Luis Alfonso Agudelo Martínez before the 67th Attorney General’s Office, of October 6, 2008. Annex 30 of the petitioners’ brief received on December 6, 2010. 268 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para 108; I/A Court H.R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 80; Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 120.