According to the statement of the Municipal Ombudsman (“Personero Municipal”) narrated by the Administrative Tribunal “from the time it was known who the deceased was there was an atmosphere of astonishment in the Fortuñela community” and “spontaneously during his funeral a large crowd carried out a march demanding justice[,] which arrived at the sector of the “Y”; there were even people haranguing the troops present at the location that they were murderers.” 160 97. b. Considerations of the Commission 98. The Commission observes in the present case that various elements concur and must be taken into consideration when deciding whether the acts occurred as stated by the State, in the context of a confrontation and the exercise of the right to legitimate self-defense, or whether, it was an extrajudicial killing, as indicated by the petitioners. When carrying out this assessment the Commission recalls that whenever the use of force [by state agents] results in death or injuries to one or more individuals, the State has the obligation to give a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events and to rebut allegations of its liability, through appropriate evidentiary elements. 161 99. In this regard, the Commission considers that the alleged confrontation is verified by the State, fundamentally, in the following evidenciary elements: the testimony of the military personnel; the finding of armaments, the ammunition used by the military during the confrontation; the report of the “Balistics Lab” stating that the revolver found is optimally functioning but in a terrible condition of conservation (see infra para. 232). 100. The Commission notes that technical tests were not carried out to determine if the gun in question was actually fired by Mr. Villamizar. In this regard, the Commission notes that the State did not demonstrate that it had used 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 selfdefense, 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. Gelves. The Commission also considers, according to the explanation given by the Office of the Prosecutor, that the condition in which the weapon was found “in a terrible state of conservation” indicates that “the gun was not carried by anyone but rather that it was kept somewhere”. 162 Likewise, the Office of the Prosecutor denounced the inconsistencies concerning the highly-flammable explosive-material that Mr. Gelves allegedly was carrying insofar as it did not explode after receiving multiple shots and due to the movement of the body”. 163 Consequently, the Commission cannot validate the statements of the State to the effect that the armaments were carried by Mr. Gelves and he himself fired the gun in a confrontation. 101. Second, according to the Office of the Prosecutor, the findings of the autopsy indicate that the body presented “10 punctures produced by a firearm projectiles, “Wound I” with POSTERIOR-ANTERIORRIGHT-LEFT trajectory: DOWN-UP” and the 9 wounds with the following trajectory “ANTERIOR-POSTERIORRIGHT-LEFT: DOWN-UP”. 164 The Office of the Prosecutor explained with regard to the wounds with a posterior-anterior trajectory that the “deceased at the time of receiving this wound, was lying face down 160 Annex. 36. Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of Arauca, judgment of Apri 13, 2000. Annexed to the written brief of the petitioners, November 6, 2000. 161 Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Case Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166. para. 108; I/A Court H.R. Case Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150. para. 80; I/A Court H.R., Case of Baldeón-García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 120. 162 Annex. 39. Fiscal Delgado, Colisión de Competencia, July 30, 1998. Annexed to the written brief of the petitioners, November 163 Annex. 39. Fiscal Delgado, Colisión de Competencia, July 30, 1998. Annexed to the written brief of the petitioners, November 6, 2000. 6, 2000. 164 The findings of the necropsy are refered to Annex. 39. in Fiscal Delgado, Colisión de Competencia, July 30, 1998. Annexed to the written brief of the petitioners, November 6, 2000.