16 The findings of the forensic examination and ballistics tests, combined with the unmistakable signs of another case of the modus operandi used by agents of the State security forces, are unequivocal proof that Hernán Lizcano was executed arbitrarily, in violation of Article 4 of the American Convention.. 44. The Court will now turn its attention to the expert opinions upon which the Commission bases its cases. The first is the anthropological analysis and forensic examination ordered by the Court. The Commission underscores one passage, cited earlier in this judgment (supra paragraph 38). The report concerns a bullet that entered the victim’s body at the right side of the neck and exited in the area of Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy’s right abdomen. The trajectory of that bullet is a vertical descent. The expert report explains the possible positions between the shooter and the victim that could cause the bullet to follow that trajectory. It states the following: This may presuppose that the shooter was above the victim, either at a higher height on the ground or in the air, or that the victim was in a crouching position in relation to the shooter. It is self-evident that the passage allows for three possibilities. The experts do not choose one over the others. Nor do they say that these are the only three possibilities, because those given are by way of example. 45. In response to the findings of the authors of the anthropological report and the forensic report, on September 7, 2001 the Court ordered a study of the shrapnel present in the remains of Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy. That study was done through a chemical analysis that employed the technique of inductively coupled plasma mass spectometry. Subsequently, the Commission suggested Mr. Héctor Daniel Fernández serve as an expert to participate in the study. In the end, the President gave authorization for Mr. Fernández to participate in the testing as an observer (supra, paragraph 28). Mr. Fernández prepared an “expert report” for the Inter-American Commission, which was submitted as an appendix to the Commission’s brief of conclusions. Mr. Fernández states the following: Having carefully evaluated the findings, which are explained in detail in the respective report (Field Mission QA-04590/2001), and replying on the technical and scientific principles of this discipline, I have the following observations: […] 6.The fracture of the left forearm and left hand wounds appear to be from the same shot that I labeled No. 1, which would make it obvious that the victim was in a “KNEELING” position at the time he was shot. Obviously, the projectile that followed that trajectory is the “pointed” bullet; the trajectory can be explained by the force and aerodynamics characteristic of that type projectile. Finally, my assertions are categorical, as I have done an exhaustive analysis of the medical-legal report and of the minute details provided by the above-referenced study using inductively coupled plasma mass spectometry (QA-04590/2001), whose descriptive pictures are very vivid. 46. An analysis of Mr. Fernández’ assertion shows that his remarks are not based on any reasoned logic, and therefore lack any evidentiary value.