these points. Hence, the need to assess the proven context together with the indications and presumptions arising from the probative elements. IV. CONCLUSION 39. Based on the foregoing, in cases such as this one, where: (a) there is a fully proven context and modus operandi of extrajudicial executions by state agents in a country, particularly in the same geographical area where the facts of the case occurred: (b) that context has been acknowledged by the State; (c) the context conforms essentially to the specific facts that must be analyzed; (d) there is no dispute that it was agents of the State who deprived the victims of their life; (e) contradictory versions of what happened exist, with the State arguing that the facts occurred during a supposed “confrontation”; (f) elementary investigation measures were not conducted that could have confirmed or rejected one of the versions; (g) previous judgment of the IACtHR exist concerning the same context and geographical region that involved the State’s responsibility, and (f) the version of the supposed confrontations argued by the State contained serious inconsistencies and was not plausible; therefore, the burden of proof should have been reversed to presume the existence of extrajudicial executions, unless there was reasonable evidence to the contrary. Bearing in mind the indications and presumptions noted in the specific case (see supra, paras. 30 to 38), all the above, analyzed together with the “context” (see supra, paras. 8 to 16) and its correspondence with the factual framework of the case (see supra, paras. 27 to 29), confirm that the facts constitute a hypothesis of extrajudicial executions. 40. For this reason, we consider that, in the instant case, the Inter-American Court should have concluded that the violation of the right to life of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto, and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez was due to circumstances in which these individuals were victims of “extrajudicial executions,” and this is more in keeping with the second operative paragraph of the judgment which specifies that Article 4 of the American Convention was violated in relation to the State’s obligations “to respect” and “to ensure” the victims’ right to life. Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot Judge Elizabeth Odio Benito Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 11