187. The Commission also notes that these statements together with Mrs. Bárcenas, who saw on the truck someone with yellow boots like those been worn by Mr. Albeiro Ramírez Jorge, as well as Mr. Numael Antonio Ramírez and Mrs. Bárcenas’ who said that when asking about their relatives in Nueva Granada Battalion, a soldier was able to tell them that three young men were taken them, before another soldier reprimand him. Additionally, the Commission observes that the events that led to the killing of Messrs. Quiñónez, Ramírez and Romero, happened within a context in which, according to the judicial investigator and the statements of Mr. Luis Alfonso Agudelo Martínez and Diana Isabel Porras, a series of killings, detentions, and seizures took place over those days in relation with a retaliation launched by the military in the town in order to avenge the death of three soldiers. 188. In view of the above, the Commission notes that Mr. Wilfredo Quiñónez’s death was consistent to the modus operandi identified for the time of the events, that is: i) he was a civilian; ii) who was executed in circumstances in which the existence of a previous attack on his part was simulated, and iii) said attack was justified by incriminating him as subversive, without grounds to do so at that time. 189. In this regard, the Commission finds the State responsible for the violation of the right to life, enshrined in Article 4 of the Convention in relation with its Article 1(1) to the detriment of Wilfredo Quiñónez. Likewise, due to his arbitrary detention, the Commission established that there is a violation or the Right to Personal Liberty enshrined in Article 7 of the Convention in relation to relation with Article 1(1) of the said instrument. With regards to Messrs. Albeiro Ramírez Jorge and José Gregorio Romero, the Commission concludes that they were also arbitrarily detained and extra judicially executed together with Mr. Quiñónez, which constitutes a violation of Articles 4 and 7 of the American Convention in relation to its Article 1(1). 190. In addition, the Commission observes that the petitioners have indicated that the victims were tortured before their death. This is supported by the statements provided by Mrs. Bárcenas, Numael Antonio Martínez and Diana Porras about the way in which the bodies were found, as well as by testimonies of the inhabitants of the sector which were referred to by the legal researcher and by the Institute of Legal Medicine, which included in its collection of the corpse and Autopsy Report a description of the wounds, as well as the photo album of the lifting the corpse. 191. In relation to the above findings, the Commission observes that the initial position of the State was to refute the existence of torture by means of the technical report of January 3, 2002, which indicated that “the findings described in the Autopsy No. SA-225-95 as bruises, fracture and abrasion with burnt edges are related to the damaged produced by an object that travels at a high speed and high temperature as a firearm projectile.” However, as reported by the State in the hearing held in connection with this case, a “procedural break in which it was ordered to continue the investigations for torture to investigate the other participants” existed and noted that there was “other evidence that the Prosecutor has to exhaust, as the exhumation and the search for other witnesses.”273 192. The Commission takes note that the petitioners submit a “Technical Report prepared by the Colombian Anthropology Forensic Investigations Team” (ECIAF) which establishes that the necropsy performed by the National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences is missing information related specifically to the description of the various injuries. In said autopsy references to abrasions, burns, fracture of the frontal bone, and explosion of the left eyeball, which are not explained by the shooting described in the report.274 193. In the absence of a definitive ruling by the State in relation to the wounds found in the bodies, the Commission considers that there is an obstacle attributable to the State to determine if such 273 IACHR, Hearing in Case 12. 711, Wilfredo Quiñónez Bárcenas, Colombia, held during the 144 Period of Sessions, March 26, 2012. Available at: http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/audiencias/hearings.aspx?lang=en&session=125 274 Annex. 92. Document prepared by the Colombian Anthropology Forensic Investigations Team. Submitted by the petitioners on May 18, 2012.