with his hands bound, Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez would have had the opportunity to hold a grenade. It is not plausible that he could have held a grenade in his hand and remained in that position even after his death. It is thus relevant to recall that the scene of the events may have been tampered with, a possibility that cannot be fully dismissed (supra para. 290). 316. This leads the Court to emphasize that the last time he was seen alive, his status was hors de combat and to deduce that he therefore merited the protection given under applicable international humanitarian law (supra paras. 276 to 278). Once Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez had been captured alive, the State was under obligation to grant him humane treatment and respect and guarantee his rights, all of which is in keeping with Article 4 of the American Convention, interpreted in light of Common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions. 317. The burden of proof is reversed in such cases, and the State acquires the obligation of providing a satisfactory, convincing explanation of what happened and refuting arguments about its responsibility, using suitable evidentiary material to demonstrate that there was some need in this case for the officers guarding Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez to use force. However, the State in the instant case has not provided this Court with a plausible, satisfactory explanation about how Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez died in the areas under exclusive control of the State. Certain information offered by the State suggests that Cruz Sánchez had a grenade in his hand (supra para. 293), but this is insufficient to dispel the belief, built on multiple, convincing items of evidence, that the death of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez occurred while he was in the hands of the State, was hors de combat, and resulted from a gunshot while his body was nearly immobile, all of which runs counter to applicable principles of international humanitarian law (supra paras. 276 to 278). 318. Peruvian judicial authorities drew the same conclusion, finding that “he died after being detained” once the rooms in the residence had come under control and the hostages had been evacuated (supra paras. 223, 224 and 311). It can therefore be concluded that it was an extrajudicial execution (supra paras. 311 and 312). 319. All this leads the Court to conclude that the State incurred international responsibility for arbitrarily depriving Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez of his life in violation of Article 4(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. B.4 Circumstances surrounding the deaths of Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza and the State’s alleged international responsibility 320. The evidence in the case file shows that Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza were found dead on the second floor of the residence in the room tagged