175. The Commission observes that in relation to these tests, it was admitted that “the gauntlet (paraffin test) was not performed by those who retrieved the corpse” (see infra para. 267). In addition, a professional employee of the Bucaramanga SIJIN indicated that at the time of the events, paraffin for the gauntlet “was very scarce and was finished in a short time” and “at that time, paraffin was completely used”. Also in relation to the atomic absorption test said official indicated in the framework of the investigation they never had “those elements for use of the Unit in charge of lifting corpses (see infra para. 267). In light of the aforementioned omissions, the Commission finds that the explanation offered by the State about the confrontation, is not satisfactory as it is not the result of the practice of evidence leading to such determinations. 176. Secondly, the Commission notes that the necropsy indicated that Mr. Quiñónez’s body showed nine firearm wounds, six of which had a “back-front” path and three of which a “front-back” path. In the internal investigation, the Office of the Criminal Prosecutor questioned the hypothesis of the clash stating that such impacts mean that they came in from behind and came out from the front" which "questions the occurrence of aggression against the troop." Also, the Prosecutor noted that the trajectory of flat bottom "top" is difficult to explain when the field was tilted in favor of the deceased, which in any case should have been "horizontal or inferior superiors."269 177. With regards to those wounds, the Commission observes the explanation given in the military jurisdiction: while Mr. Quiñónez was shooting, he was running backwards from the truck to escape from the military officers when he was hit (see infra para. 277) or, because the combat was engaging (“envolvente”,) which means that Mr. Quiñónez was in the middle of two trucks, from which he was being shot (see infra para. 271.) Notwithstanding these explanations were not backed by evidence from the internal investigation, the Commission observes that the 2nd Unit from the Attorney General’s Office (Fiscalía Segunda) questioned the self-defense hypothesis as it indicated that it was outstanding that the body was only 12 meters away from the bicycle he was riding, which meant that “if he ran as alleged, he failed to move much and wasn’t chased much, as there were neither the time nor the distance necessary to ask him to stop or shoot to the air.” (see infra para. 272) 178. In view of the above and taking into account that to date, there is no information about a final decision in the national jurisdiction that could successfully explain how could these wounds be the result of a clash, the Commission finds that the State has failed to discredit this circumstantial evidence related to how Mr. Quiñónez was shot in the back and, given the distance in that the body was found, how could there was time for him to receive a stop order, flee and shoot against the troops. 179. Thirdly, the Commission notes that in accordance to the scope of the national investigations, there are inconsistencies in the versions provided by the military and the operational results that would allow to state that it was a clash. In this regard, the Commission emphasizes that the Prosecutors Office noted several inconsistencies between the accounts of the military and the available evidence. Among them: i) there would be inconsistencies over if the vehicles were advancing in the enveloping form, which could “at the end mean that they very close to having accident among the troops” as they would have been in a “cross fire;” ii) that Captain Prieto did not report on the patrolling and the report just stated the operation without giving much detail about it and instead, putting out names of soldiers as witnesses of the events, who then expressed that they had no direct link to the events, except for one who would have told the story differently; iii) that Captain Prieto was unclear in his statements as he referred to two groups that were “engaged” and that the young man died when he began to notice the presence of the troops; as well as that he was riding in the second car as a passenger, then in another statement he said he was driving and subsequently he said that he was riding “as a passenger in the first vehicle;” and iv) that Captain Prieto states that Mr. Quiñónez 269 Annex. 90. Criminal Judicial, Pre-classification murder, August 20, 2003. Annex 14 of the petitioners’ brief received on December 6, 2010.