Commission notes that the State did not demonstrate the use of all evidentiary, technical and scientific mechanisms to define the most basic element of the controversy, this is, whether the death took place in a confrontation and in legitimate self-defense or whether it was an extrajudicial execution. Among the essential evidentiary elements there is, for example, “paraffin test”, “fingerprinting”, or “atomic absorbtion” which could have determined whether the gun was actually fired by Mr. Villamizar. 77. Secondly, according to the autopsy protocol, four wounds are described with an “inferiorsuperior” and “posterior-anterior” trajectory. The Commission observes that, in consequence, the version of the members of the patrol that they shot him when he was headed towards them is not consistent with the forensic evidence, which indicates that the shots came from behind and were fired upwards. 78. Thirdly, the Commission observes there are inconsistencies in the versions provided by the military men, the only remaining evidence of the facts. Two statements indicate having knowledge that one person was accompanying Mr. Gustavo Giraldo Villamizar,97 while the others indicate that he was by himself. 98 Likewise, in relation to the number of gunshots that Mr. Gustavo Giraldo Villamizar fired at the patrol, there is a statement indicating there were “more or less six gunshots”;99 the others indicate “two gunshots sounded”;100 “I heard three impacts”;101 they were “four or five” 102 and; “two to three impacts” 103, while according to the technical evidence only one shell was found that was allegedly shot by Mr. Villamizar. 79. Furthermore, the Commission notes that the testimonies of Mrs. María Olfa Rodríguez and Egar Ortega Hernández are consistent in indicating that Mr. Gustavo Giraldo Villamizar was traveling on a motorcycle that had a flat tire. The available information states that between the bridge and the military roadblock the tire was not repaired. Indeed, according to the technical test carried out afterwards on said vehicle, it “can be concluded that (because) of the hole in the neumatic tire it cannot be used with people on it” (see infra para. 204). In this regard, given the condition of the motorcycle, the Commission notes it would be difficult that Mr. Villamizar would have traveled on it “at a high speed” as stated by a soldier, 104 to attempt to evade the roadblock or to maneuver during the alleged confrontation. Also, assuming that Mr. Villamizar fired the only shot which is attributed to him, this is incompatible with the assertions of some military men in 97 Mr. Mamérito Pérez Mosquera stated that “the other “lince” (lynx) told us there were two manes (men) on the motorcycle.” Annex. 33. Diligence rendered by regular soldier Mamérito Pérez Mosquera on August 20, 1996. Annexed to the written brief of the State received on August 26, 2010. Likewise, Nelson Alfredo Monroy stated “there were two, because they told us be aware, in that direction went the other, and the one who was there.” Annex. 28. Diligence rendered by regular soldier Regular Nelson Alfredo Monroy de León before Court 124 of Military Criminal Instruction, August 30, 1996. Annexed to the written brief of the State received on August 26, 2010. 98Annex 20. Diligence rendered by Regular soldier Mr. Días Durán Wilson before Court 124 of Military Criminal Instruction, October 24, 1996. Annexed to the written brief of the State received on August 26, 2010; Annex. 23. Diligence rendered by Mr. Omar Duarte, before Municipal Ombudsperson, October 16, 1996. Annexed to the written brief of the State received on August 26, 2010; Annex. 21. Diligence rendered by SLV. Mr. Ariel Méndez Quirife before Court 124 of Military Criminal Instruction, October 24, 1996. Annexed to the written brief of the State received on August 26, 2010; Annex. 18. Diligence rendered by Second Sergeant Mr. Gustavo Urbano Mejía before Court 124 of Military Criminal Instruction, October 24, 1996. Annexed to the written brief of the State received on August 26, 2010. 99Annex. 31. Diligence by Mr. Luis Villamizar Anaya, October 24, 1996. Annexed to the written brief of the State received on August 26, 2010. Annexed to the written brief of the State received on August 26, 2010. 100Annex. 28. Diligence rendered by regular soldier Regular Nelson Alfredo Monroy de León before Court 124 of Military Criminal Instruction, August 30, 1996. Annexed to the written brief of the State received on August 26, 2010. 101Annex. 18. Diligence rendered by Sargent Segundo Gustavo Urbano Mejía before Court 124 of Military Criminal Instruction, 24 October 1996. Annexed to the written brief of the State received on August 26, 2010. 102Annex. 20. Diligence rendered by Regular Soldier Díaz Durán Wilson before the Court 124 of Military Criminal Instruction, 24 October de 1996. Annexed to the written brief of the State received on August 26, 2010. Annex. 21. Diligence rendered by de SLV. Ariel Méndez Quirife before Court 124 of Military Criminal Instruction, 24 October de 1996. Annexed to the written brief of the State received on August 26, 2010. 103Annex. 24. Diligence rendered by SLV. Reymund Piñeres before Court 124 of Military Criminal Instruction, 24 October de 1996. Annexed to the written brief of the State received on August 26, 2010. Diligence rendered. 104 Anexo 22. Diligence rendered by First Sergeant Mr. José Virgilio Jiménez Mahecha before Court 124 of Military Criminal Instruction, October 24, 1996. Annexed to the written brief of the State received on August 26, 2010.