54 authority. However, in the cases of Mr. Angárita, Ms. Torres and Mr. Montes, the mere fact of their acquittal, mentioned by the State in its brief of closing arguments, shows that they were not caught in the act. 112. The allegations and evidence examined by the Court contain sufficient, grave and converging facts -not diminished by the State- demonstrating that the following persons’ right to liberty was violated by their arbitrary arrests: Ms. Ana Elizabeth Paniagua-Morales, Mr. Julián Salomón Gómez-Ayala, Mr. William Otilio GonzálezRivera, Mr. Pablo Corado-Barrientos, Mr. Manuel de Jesús González-López, Mr. Augusto Angárita-Ramírez, Ms. Doris Torres-Gil and Mr. Marco Antonio Montes-Letona, in contravention of the obligations set forth in Article 7 of the American Convention of Human Rights. XII VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 4 113. The Commission requested that the Court declare that the State of Guatemala has violated the right to life, enshrined in Article 4 of the American Convention to the detriment of the following victims: Ana Elizabeth Paniagua-Morales; Julián Salomón Gómez-Ayala; William Otilio González-Rivera; Pablo Corado-Barrientos; Manuel de Jesús González-López and Erik Leonardo Chinchilla. The Commission declared that preservation of the right to life was one of a State’s fundamental obligations, a right that is non-derogable. Further, they concluded that Ms. Paniagua-Morales, Mr. Gómez-Ayala, Mr. González-Rivera, Mr. Corado-Barrientos, Mr. González-López and Mr. Chinchilla were arbitrarily executed by members of the Treasury Police, in other words, agents of the State. The Commission added that at no time during the process before it did the State deny that the victims in this case were murdered by members of the Treasury Police. 114. In its answer to the application, the State contended that it was untrue that it had violated the aforesaid victims’ right to life, a right protected under its Political Constitution, "from the very moment of conception." It further maintained that if the State had deprived those persons of their lives it "would imply the existence of the State’s intentionality, which cannot be inferred from [its] actions." It further stated that there was no evidence of any State intention in this case, apart from that of investigating the events, punishing those responsible, and going so far as to conduct a thorough reform of the penal system. 115. In its brief of rejoinder, the Inter-American Commission claimed that proof of intent is not required in order to establish the State’s responsibility for human rights violations, and declared in its closing arguments that the murders of six victims in this case (supra, para. 113) are directly attributable to Guatemala, owing to the arbitrary deprivation of life by State agents. It also claimed that the State possessed the means to elucidate these violations and had the obligation to carry out an effective judicial inquiry designed to prosecute and punish the perpetrators of those violations. 116. The Commission further maintained that even when the circumstances surrounding a death are not completely clarified, international human rights protection organs have declared the State in question responsible for the violation of the right to life when that State has not conducted an adequate investigation of the accusations. 117. Guatemala indicated in its brief of closing arguments that there is no evidence to show that it was State officials who deprived the victims who lost their lives in the instant Case of their liberty. It went on to say that "[i]nstead, there is evidence to the