or summary killings.271 In addition, the Court has ruled that in such cases the State must initiate, on an ex officio basis and without delay, a serious, impartial, and effective investigation, once it is apprised of the fact,272 regardless of whether the violation was committed by state agents or private citizens. Thus, an effective investigation is a fundamental and conditioning element for the protection of certain rights that are affected or annulled by those situations, such as the right to life.273 192. The Court has also said that the duty of conducting an investigation is heightened when there are indications that state agents were involved. 274 On this point, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that: The State’s obligation of protecting the right to life requires by implication that there must be some form of effective official investigation when an individual has been killed by the use of force. Those investigations must be carried out […] regardless of whether the perpetrators are state agents or third parties. However, when the involvement of state agents or agencies is alleged, specific requirements may be imposed on the effectiveness of the investigation. (…) The essential purpose of such an investigation is to ensure the effective enforcement of the domestic laws that protect the right to life, and to ensure, in those cases involving state agents, their accountability for the deaths under their responsibility (unofficial translation).275 193. Based on the foregoing, in the case at hand the duty of investigating should have been observed with particular diligence and seriousness, on account of the existence of indications that state agents were implicated or involved in Carlos Escaleras’s death. 194. The Commission again states that given such indications, which would appear to directly engage the State’s international responsibility by acquiescence, collaboration, or participation, the authorities in charge of the investigation should have made every effort to clarify any possible responsibility or involvement on the part of state authorities in a violation of the right to life.276 It therefore falls to the State to conduct a detailed, serious, and diligent investigation to verify or disprove the claims of state agents’ involvement. 195. In connection with this duty, the Court has ruled that in cases of violent deaths where there are indications of the participation of state agents, the State must take all the measures necessary to determine the corresponding individual responsibilities. 277 The Court has ruled that in cases where this does not take place, it is (…) reasonable to assess as evidence the indications contained in the case file (...) that point to the involvement of state agents in these events, particularly those handled by the very state agencies that were in charge of the investigation which have not been disproved by the State. Reaching any other conclusion would entail allowing the State to resort to its own 271 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C No. 140, para. 142. 272 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C No. 140, para. 143; Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, Judgment of June 15, 2005, Series C No. 124, para. 145. 273 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C No. 140, para. 145. 274 I/A Court H. R., Case of Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela, Merits, Judgment of November 27, 2012, Series C No. 256, para. 127. ECHR, Khaindrava and Dzamashvili v. Georgia, Judgment of September 8, 2010, para. 58; McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of September 27, 1995, paras. 49 and 161; and Mastromatteo v. Italy, Judgment of October 24, 2002, para. 89. 275 276 IACHR, Report No. 120/10, Case 12.605, Merits, Joe Luis Castillo González (Venezuela), October 22, 2010, para. 109. I/A Court H. R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of April 3, 2009, Series C No. 196, para. 97. 277 37