judicial guarantees and judicial protection, and (4) The right to personal integrity of the next of kin. VII-1 RIGHTS TO LIFE AND TO HUMANE TREATMENT, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND ENSURE THESE RIGHTS WITH REGARD TO IGMAR ALEXANDER LANDAETA MEJÍAS A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 119. The Commission indicated that the cases of the Landaeta brothers have elements in common with the context of extrajudicial executions in Venezuela: the profile of the victims, the impact of the context in the state of Aragua; the actions of the police authorities after the facts, and the situation of impunity. In its final written observations, the Commission specified that it was not alleging that there was a “State policy,” but rather a problem of extrajudicial executions mainly by police agents in the region. In particular, in the case of Igmar Landaeta, the Commission determined that the State had violated the obligation to respect the rights established in Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention in his regard. In relation to his death, the Commission considered that Igmar Landaeta had been extrajudicially executed and that, even if he had been armed and had fired at the police agents, the State had not justified the use of force based on the principles of necessity and proportionality, at least in the case of the second shot in the victim’s face. The Commission also noted the illegality of the actions of the police agents involved, owing to the absence of identification (they wore civilian clothing and were driving in a vehicle that was not identified as being a police car), as well as their attitude following the death, when transporting the corpse to the medical center without providing any explanation of what had happened, which amounts to additional evidence of the arbitrary nature of the use of force in this case. The Commission also considered it reasonable to infer that the young man experienced profound fear when he was wounded and was begging the agents not to kill him, which constituted a violation of the obligation to respect the right to humane treatment, as well as the lack of a serious and diligent investigation to clarify what happened, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention. 120. The representatives agreed with the Commission in general, but asserted that the presumed victim was unarmed and did not represent a danger or threat to the police agents who intercepted him. The representatives also affirmed that the State’s responsibility was engaged because: (a) the execution of Igmar Landaeta was committed by agents of the State; (b) the agents used disproportionate lethal force; (c) the State failed to adopt the appropriate measures to ensure an effective investigation of the incident, and (d) the victim experienced profound suffering at the moment of his death. In addition, they indicated that the extrajudicial execution of Igmar Landaeta was not an isolated incident, and should have been investigated in the more general context of the extrajudicial executions that were occurring in the country at that time. They also indicated that the threats and harassment reported by his mother had not been taken into account. The representatives concluded that the State was responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Igmar Landaeta by State agents, in violation of Article 4 of the Convention. They also indicated that “he experienced anxiety and anguish with regard to his life and personal integrity, as well as severe physical, psychological and mental suffering owing to his uncertain future, before he was a victim of extrajudicial execution”; therefore, the State was responsible for the violation of Article 5 of the Convention to his detriment. 121. Meanwhile, the State asserted that the entry in the logbook for November 18, 1996, records that the agents attached to the CTPJ, Mariño Division, “had a gun battle with an individual called Landaeta.” However, the State clarified that the confrontation 30