deaths of these seven individuals. They alleged that four soldiers—members of the National Guard present in the prison that day—were responsible for the deaths. They have been criminally charged. 7. In the initial petition before the Commission, petitioners stated that these deaths took place during a prison riot during which the prison director requested that the National Guard enter the facility. However, at the merits stage, they alleged that there was no riot that day, but rather “a plan drawn up beforehand by members of the Armed Forces who […] ended the lives of the seven individuals [and] injured another 26,” who the petitioner also identified as alleged victims.2 8. They alleged that the prison director requested that members of the National Guard enter the prison that morning in accordance Article 8 of the Penitentiary Regime Act, which allowed the National Guard to enter a penitentiary at the request of the director. It alleged that the actions of the National Guard in the prison constituted an undue use of force against inmates, which demonstrated that the entry into the prison was unjustified and disproportionate. It stated that these facts were a means of repression aimed at the leaders of a prison strike that had ended weeks before, whose “purpose was to get [Captain Campos] removed.” The petitioners alleged that “the goal [...] was to make an example for the rest of the inmates and punish the victims.” 9. They alleged violation of the right to life to the detriment of the seven deceased individuals because the National Guard caused their deaths. Alternatively, they alleged that the State has not overcome the presumption of responsibility for the deaths of individuals in its custody. Likewise, they underscored the existence of a structural context of “failure of all public officials to guarantee the security necessary at detention centers to prevent so many deaths from occurring in the country's prisons.” It alleged the violation of the right to personal integrity to the detriment of the seven deceased individuals, arguing that the members of the National Guard caused the victims “physical and psychological suffering to different degrees [… and committed] inhuman acts and acts of torture.” They also alleged violations of the right to personal integrity to the detriment of the close relatives of the deceased individuals as a result of their suffering due to the deaths, as well as the exacerbation of their suffering by the justice system’s delay of more than 10 years in trying the case. 10. They alleged that although the investigation into the facts began on November 10, 2003, the preliminary hearing was not held until June 3, 2014. It stated that as of March 2015, the trial of those charged still had not taken place. Thus, they alleged violation of the right to a fair trial and the right to judicial protection, due to the State's failure to comply with its duty to investigate with due diligence, ex officio, and within a reasonable period of time. Likewise, it alleged that the Public Prosecutor and Judicial Branch officials who heard the case lacked independence, and that the Executive Branch interfered in the Judicial Branch. B. State 11. At the merits stage, the State presented arguments relating to the admissibility of the case— concretely, the alleged lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies—which will not be addressed in this report, as they were previously decided by the Commission in Admissibility Report 14/11. 12. The State alleged that on November 10, 2003, the Vista Hermosa Judicial Prison was under intervention by an evaluation council looking to address the prison’s problems; between 7:00 am and 7:30 am, Alfredo Veloz, the Intervention Director, was interviewing an inmate when multiple projectiles (pellets) were fired at the inmate. It stated that the director and two guards were injured. It stated that in response to this and other subsequent detonations, the director explicitly asked the National Guard to enter the prison “to control what was presumed to be a riot, and as a result of that action, the death [of the deceased alleged victims] took place, and 27 other inmates were injured.” 13. It stated that the investigation carried out so far “has found a group of members of the National Guard under the Second Company of Detachment No. 81 to be responsible”: both the four who were charged in the case and another 25 National Guard members involved in the facts. It indicated that “evidentiary elements have emerged indicating that [the four individuals charged] are criminally responsible.” It later stated that it 2 Identified in paragraph 18 of this report. 2