13 may suggest that the person who shot the victim was over the victim, either because he was on higher ground or in the air, or because the victim was in a crouching position in relation to the shooter. From the medical-legal standpoint, the trajectory of the bullets suggests the possibility of homicide as the manner of death. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the autopsy report about anything that would suggest the distance the bullets traveled, for example, smoke residue, gun powder residue, the size the entry wound, burns, oil residue from the barrel of the gun. The analysis of the exhumed remains failed to reveal any information in this regard. The expert report ordered by the Court to analyze the bullet fragments found among Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy’s remains, using the technique of inductively coupled plasma mass spectometry, failed to reveal any further information about how Lizcano Jacanamejoy died. However, the Commission has relied on an “expert” report prepared by Mr. Héctor Daniel Fernández, the observer designated to be present for the tests at the Commission’s suggestion. He states categorically that “the victim was in a kneeling position at the time he was shot.” 39. In its final brief, the Commission developed two theories concerning Colombia’s responsibility in the death of Lizcano Jacanamejoy. First, it argued that the tests conducted constitute absolute proof that the victim was executed by agents of the State and was absolutely defenseless at the time. Second, invoking various precedents of the European Court of Human Rights, the Commission asserts that because it failed to conduct a serious investigation into how the events occurred, Colombia is responsible for Lizcano Jacanamejoy’s death. In its final brief Colombia pointed out that the Commission’s assertion that Colombia was responsible because of its failure to conduct the proper investigations is based on jurisprudence that the European Court of Human Rights created in cases where the laws and facts were not analogous to the present case. The State challenged the form and substance of Mr. Fernández‘ expert opinion. It argued, inter alia, that this expert opinion was not prepared by a Court-appointed expert, that it lacked probative value and that the expert testing for which Mr. Fernández was observer was based on a chemical study; it was not a ballistics test. * * 40. Summarizing, based on the submissions in these proceedings, the Commission’s contention that Colombia is responsible for the death of Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy is based on three hypotheses: a) a reversal of the onus probandi, thus requiring the State to prove it is not responsible for Lizcano Jacanamejoy‘s death; b) failure to investigate the facts, which it argues makes the State responsible for the death; and c) the evidence produced, particularly the expert evidence. The Court will now proceed to examine each of the three hypotheses. 41. a) As explained previously (supra paragraphs 35 and 36), the Commission has been changing its hypothesis concerning the applicable law in the matter of onus probandi as the proceedings in this case have unfolded. In its application, the Commission asked the Court to establish the circumstances of the death of a seventh victim, purported to have been killed in combat, in order to determine whether Colombia had violated Article 4 of the American Convention. This