The de facto re-establishment of the death penalty does not necessarily result only from active wilful misconduct by the highest authorities of a State, but also from their omissions or negligence. Since, owing to its nature, this re-establishment lacks any type of formality, because it arises from the events themselves, it can only be proved by the ordinary means for proving the facts, which include serious, precise and congruent presumptions. In the instant case, the serious failure to clarify the facts and the proven context – even admitted by the State itself – create a serious presumption that – at least due to omission and negligence – the practice of extrajudicial executions or the de facto death penalty was widespread. This de facto re-establishment of the death penalty resulted in a violation of the human right to life, but not only of the victims in this case since it also represents a general threat to this right for all inhabitants. The right to life, as any other right, is not violated merely due to its infringement – that is, when a killing is carried out – but also due to the danger involved – that is, when a threat hangs over the whole population of possible random death at the hands of any armed official of the State who claims, creates or invents the connection of the victim to an unlawful act, prescinding of any formal process – in other words, when the death penalty is re-established de facto. Consequently and bearing in mind the context proven in the instant case, I conclude that it also constitutes a violation of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 4 of the ACHR because it relates to the de facto re-establishment of the death penalty which, due to the danger involved, violates the right to life of the whole population of the State. Eduardo Rául Zaffaroni Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 2