12 responsibility of the State for violation of Article 4 [of the American Convention] and Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, are still unclear. The Commission also reserves the right to request exhumation of Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy’s body and a reconstruction of the events in order to study the trajectory of the bullets. In its brief of reply, Colombia states simply that the analyses and conclusions that the Commission reached regarding the fate of N.N./Moisés Ojeda and Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy are very helpful to the Colombian authorities, have been studied carefully and will be raised at the proper point in the proceedings. 37. At the public hearing held on May 28, 2001, the State admitted responsibility for violation of Article 4 of the Convention in the case of the death of N.N. Moisés Ojeda. As for the fate of Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy, at that public hearing the Commission first asserted that the testimony of the police officers who participated in the operation “is not credible” and analyzed other evidence tendered for this case. The Commission drew the Court’s attention to the trajectory of the bullets in Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy‘s body, according to the autopsy conducted. In the Commission‘s opinion, the trajectory “suggests an extrajudicial execution.“ As for the evidence concerning the death of Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy, the Commission asserted that: The particular circumstances of this case are such that the burden of proof can be reversed in order to establish the responsibility of the State in the violation of Mr. Hernán Lizcano‘s right to life, from the very special angle of international human rights law. Colombia relied mainly on the testimony given by Victoria Eugenia Yepes and Pedro Elías Díaz Romero about the evidences tendered in the local proceedings, most of which are attached to the case file. Colombia’s agent concluded that: Consequently, in this effort to clarify the facts, it should be noted that it has already been shown that the Colombian justice system established -and the Commission assumed in its application- that Mr. Lizcano Jacanamejoy died in combat. The State cannot be held internationally accountable for his death, as this was neither a summary nor extrajudicial execution. 38. As previously noted (supra paragraph 27), the Court ordered exhumation of the remains of Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy and the corresponding examinations anthropological analyses and forensic examination of the remains. The report from these tests states that the victim was shot at least twice. It states the following concerning the trajectory of the bullets: Even though in this case the precise direction of the bullets could not be established using the mortal remains, those pieces whose possible trajectory could be discerned match what was described in the autopsy […] The trajectories described in the autopsy, in some respects corroborated and in others acknowledged as a possibility by the anthropological tests, are quite instructive in terms of a hypothesis as to the mode or manner of death, first because both shots are described as posterior-anterior. In particular, the autopsy describes the angle of the bullet as entering the right side of the neck and exiting in the area of the right abdomen; in other words, the trajectory was a vertical drop from the top, down. This