88. In the instant case, the Commission has deemed to be proven fact that Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez lost their lives on January 6, 2003 as a consequence of gunshots fired by officers of the CSOPEA, the police force of Aragua state. Additionally, the IACHR explained that there are two versions of these events. The version of the police officers claiming that there were two confrontations triggered when a police detail identified them as allegedly responsible for a crime reported that day. According to this version, when Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto was wounded, they proceeded to take him to a health care facility and continued to chase his father and brother, which gave rise to a second confrontation. Nonetheless, there is another version from several witnesses and the family claiming that the three family members were extrajudicially executed, at two different points in time. The first point in time was when Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto was allegedly taken from his residence by a police detail, being wounded at that point, after which he was arrested in that condition and deliberately driven around the area without immediately being taken to a health care facility. When he was finally taken to one, he was admitted without displaying any vital signs. The second point in time of execution was when his brother David Octavio Díaz Loreto and his father Octavio Díaz set off to search for him aided by a neighbor, being intercepted by police officers, who fired on them and transferred them to another hospital where they too were admitted without displaying any vital signs. 89. Based on the foregoing, the IACHR notes that there is no dispute that the individuals who killed the three alleged victims were state police officers. It must be examined whether or not these events constituted an illegitimate use of lethal force and, consequently, whether the deprivation of life was arbitrary or not as provided under Article 4 of the Convention. For this purpose and based on the above-cited standards, the Commission will first examine whether the State met its burden to provide a reasonable explanation about what took place. As was noted earlier, said explanation, cannot be based on the version of the officers themselves who were involved, but must be the result of a diligent and effective investigation. 90. As of the present date, after more than 14 years have elapsed, the two diametrically opposing versions about the facts still exist and there has not been any final elucidation of the case by the courts. Even though the judgments of acquittal, one overturned and the other challenged on appeal, established that there were applicable grounds to relieve the officers of their liability, the investigation that gave rise to said decisions is characterized by many irregularities and deficiencies including the fact that it was opened against the alleged victims, regarding the Venezuelan State as the offended party, as well as serious omissions in the collection and evaluation of evidence, which was recognized by domestic authorities themselves. For example, the determinations of lack of analysis regarding certain testimonial evidence promoted but not evacutated, as well as the lack of motivation as to why “self-defence” and “compliance with duty” were considered based on the available evidence. These aspects will be thoroughly examined in the section on the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection. As respects the relevant aspect to this point in the report, the Commission finds that the State has not provided a satisfactory explanation on the use of lethal force in order to justify the use thereof in keeping with the principles of legitimate purpose, strict necessity and proportionality. In accordance with the Inter-American legal precedents described above, in the absence of said explanation from the State, it is appropriate to presume illegitimate use of lethal force. 91. Notwithstanding the foregoing considerations, the Commission will make some points about the use of lethal force to the detriment of the alleged victims in light of said principles taking into account both versions of the facts and based on the information available in the case file. 92. From what is described in the facts proven, the Commission notes that regarding the second version of events consisting of the absence of confrontations and that what occurred were extrajudicial executions, there are many pieces of evidence, all consistent with each other, as well as consistent with the context and specific modus operandi in effect at the time of the events. 93. So for example, in the case file there appear many statements not only from family members but from other eye witnesses and these are consistent with facts such as: i) Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto was taken from his residence by police officers and was wounded at the time by a firearm; ii) that his family members were prevented from coming to his aid and that in those conditions he was put into the patrol car 23