Rights to life, personal liberty and personal integrity; (b) Rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, and (c) Rights to personal integrity of the family members of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez. VII.1. RIGHTS TO LIFE, PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND PERSONAL LIBERTY (ARTICLES 1(1), 2, 4, 5 AND 7 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION AND 1, 6 AND 8 OF THE INTERAMERICAN CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH TORTURE) A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission A.1. The right to life (Article 4 of the American Convention) 53. The Commission alleged that the State was responsible for violating the right to life of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez. It argued that the State had failed to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the deaths of these three individuals occurred and, in particular, regarding how the use of lethal force was justified in light of the principles of legitimate purpose, and strict necessity and proportionality. It added that there were many probative elements that were mutually reinforcing, as well as consistent with the specific context and modus operandi in force at the time of the events, which accord credibility to the version that there were no confrontations and that what occurred were extrajudicial executions. 54. The representatives added that: (i) the police officers who used lethal force were not faced with any of the legal situations for the detention to be considered lawful (arrest warrant or in flagrancia); (ii) the facts did not fall within the situation of preventing escape and/or repelling an attack, and (iii) regarding the proportionality, the measures used to repel an attack should have contemplated a differentiated and progressive use of force. 55. The State argued that the police officers acted in the presence of in flagrante delicto. It argued that an imminent threat and, in general, compliance with the principle of strict necessity was present when the alleged victims were the first to point their firearms at the officers, who responded with their service arms and ammunition, which were similar in power and scope, in keeping with the principle of proportionality. It also argued that the duly proved facts indicated that the deaths of the alleged victims did not conform to the regional patterns of extrajudicial executions and had not occurred in similar contexts and, above all, clearly differed from other cases against Venezuela submitted to this Court. 65 Among other matters, the State argued that the facts that set the instant case apart from the characteristic circumstances of extrajudicial executions are that the police officers acted wearing their service uniform, fully identified and with their faces uncovered, in service vehicles, using their service firearms. In addition, the deaths occurred on a public street, in the presence of witnesses, in a situation of in flagrante delicto, and the scene of the incidents had been duly preserved and safeguarded. In addition, all the shots were fired from afar; the police vehicle showed signs of shots fired from a distance with a trajectory confirming the existence of a confrontation. It added that the alleged victims were transferred to the nearest public health centers by the police officers involved. It recalled that the Public Prosecution Service opened and led the actions to prove the presumed responsibility of the police officers; the relevant State medical and forensic science agencies conducted all the expert appraisals and tests requested to clarify the facts; the Criminal Court admitted the indictment that was filed and ordered the deprivation of liberty of the police officers prior to the proceedings; the state police force provided all necessary collaboration to the criminal investigation; the police officers themselves voluntarily submitted to the criminal proceedings against them, without any coercion and without trying to escape. It added that it had been the family members and friends of one of the alleged victims who stigmatized the police or indicated that they had violated criminal law or were guilty of “misconduct.” 65 -18-