adopt all appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive obligation), 68 pursuant to the obligation to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of their rights. 69 88. Likewise, the case law of this Court has indicated that the State is in a special position as guarantor of the rights of the individual in its custody. 70 The Court also recalls that, according to its case law, whenever the use of force by State agents has caused death or injuries to one or more persons, the State must offer a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events and rebut the allegations regarding its responsibility by providing appropriate evidence. 71 89. In the instant case, the circumstances surrounding Joffre Aroca’s death are not disputed. He died from a gunshot wound after being detained by police officers. The Ecuadorian authorities reached the same conclusion. Indeed, Second Lieutenant Rivera Enríquez of the National Police was convicted of the crime in the domestic courts, because of his arbitrary conduct. In other words, the domestic courts dismissed the police officer’s version of the circumstances surrounding the death of the alleged victim. All of this was also confirmed in the Truth Commission’s final report, which described the event as an “extrajudicial execution.” 90. Although the State contested its international responsibility based on the fact that the officer had been tried and convicted, and given the investigations carried out as a result of the Truth Commission’s final report, the allegations described above are related to the analysis of the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, which forms part of the next chapter. The Court has already held it to have been proven, undisputedly, that the death of the alleged victim occurred while he was in the custody of the State. This fact alone establishes the State’s international responsibility. 91. Therefore, based on the rulings of the domestic institutions, supported by Ecuador’s arguments, Mr. Aroca Palma’s death was irrefutably the result of the arbitrary exercise of force by an agent of the State. This means that the facts of the case can be classified as an extrajudicial execution, and constitute a violation of Article 4(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. B.3. Right to personal integrity 92. This Court has heard cases in which it determined that, in addition to the right to life, extrajudicial executions violated the right to personal integrity, given the victims’ “profound fear, faced with the real, imminent danger that the aggressions … would culminate in [their] death.” 72 93. It has been established that, according to the Metropolitan Police officer, when Mr. Aroca Palma was put into the police vehicle, Second Lieutenant Rivera Enríquez covered the alleged victim’s face with his shirt (supra para. 35). Then, instead of taking the victim to a police Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999, para. 144, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2021. Series C No. 447, para. 141.5 69 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 153, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family v. Mexico, supra, para. 141. 70 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No 20, para. 60, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 2, 2021. Series C No. 441, para 239. 71 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Catia Detention Center) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 80, and Case of Olivares Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 10, 2020. Series C No. 415, para. 89. 72 Cf. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 99, and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 80. 68 19