noticed the presence of the soldiers when they were inside a car, which was qualified as a “curious element” as the vehicles were travelling with their lights on, which prevents visibility of the occupants.270 180. As additional inconsistencies, the Military High Court noted that i) it was said that the corpse was “face down, which is different than what is stated in pages 43 and 49 of the first notebook;” ii) soldier Granados Ramírez refers to three trucks: yellow, green and red wine and Lieutenant Prieto “acknowledged the existence in his vehicle lot of at least one white truck”, during of his statements. Also, with respect to the account supported by the military, that is what the Colombian State has assumed in the present case, the High Military High Court indicated that “its illogical to suppose that this young man, while being sane, when surrounded by all these representatives of the States legitimate authority, with such dissuasive capacity and after listening to warning shots and stop cries, would go back to attack them by shooting from his bicycle.”271 181. Fourthly, the Commission observes that according to the information in the file, once Mr. Quiñónez died, Captain Prieto , justified this death by saying he was a “subversive” “called the witch,” “about him several reports were given that he belong to an armed group, but we never verified that or capture him when executing any illicit activities.” The Commission notes that even though the Military High Court notes that there were charges presented against “the witch” by two paramilitaries272 of March, 2005, as the file shows, said persons were not cited to testify before or after Mr. Wilfredo Quiñónez’s death. 182. Accordingly, the Commission considers that apart from the justification invoked by the Captain of the troop in order to legitimize their action, there is no additional evidence that would allow considering Mr. Quiñónez a subversive at the time he was killed. 183. The Commission observes, in contrast with the account supported by the State, which shows contradictions and inconsistencies, that there is evidence to demonstrating the authorship of State agents in the killing, not only of Mr. Wilfredo Quiñónez, but also of Messrs. Romero and Ramírez. 184. In this regard, the Commission noted that in accordance with the necropsy of Messrs. Ramírez and Romero, both were shot with a “posterior-anterior” path and Mr. Romero even had a shot in the neck with blackening and power tattoo, which means, from a short distance. The Commission infers that his death was not the result of a clash. As will be explained infra in the section of investigation analysis, the projectiles that killed them were not identified neither was it determined if they came from weapons that the military officers were carrying. 185. On the other hand, with regard to the attribution of responsibility for the killings to the military, witnesses, Ángel María Noriega and Deysi Porras Ramírez, state that the evening of September 3, a military truck chased three youth that were riding bicycles. According to Mr. Ángel María Noriega, said truck took the young men and their bicycles. 186. The Commission considers that, although the State argues that Mr. Ángel María Noriega did not establish that he saw Messrs. Quiñónez, Rivera and Romero, the above description matches the one form Mrs. Bárcenas when she said that her son and his two friends were bicycling, the same day and at the same area. Additionally, in the framework of the internal investigation, Mrs. Blanca Nieves Serrano said that her son was also taken in a military truck and when she rescued him, she herself identified Mr. Albeiro Ramírez Jorge in the truck. The Commission considers that this last statement is enough to give credibility to the consistent version that those people that Mr. Noriega saw were taken to the truck by State agents were Messrs. Quiñónez, Romero and Ramírez who were subsequently executed. 270 Annex. 90. Criminal Judicial, Pre-classification murder, August 20, 2003. Annex 14 of the petitioners’ brief received on December 6, 2010. 271 Annex. 91. Military High Court, Judgment of July 31st, 2007. Annex 25of the petitioners’ brief received on December 6, 272 Annex. 91. Military Hight Court, Judgment of July 31, 2007. Annex 25 of the petitioners’ brief received in December 6, 2010. 2010.