of this expert witness that the door behind the corpse had been hit by numerous bullets, and this “suggest[ed] that there was no confrontation,” but rather shots against him and an effort to “make it look like random shots”;131 in other words, to simulate a confrontation. 106. Regarding the weapon that was found in Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ right hand, the Court notes that it belonged to a state agent without any plausible explanation having been provided to date about how Mr. Ruiz Fuentes could have obtained it. The Court also notes that there were no blood stains on the weapon, while there were blood stains on the right hand that held it.132 Moreover, the Court notes the observation made by expert witness Carranza Izquierdo that, since he received a shot in the face, it was “very difficult or impossible that he could hold the weapon in his right hand, because […] at the moment he was hit in the face he lost consciousness.”133 Lastly, the Court notes that the team that handled the crime scene failed to perform any type of test to find gunpowder residue on Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ hands and, in theory, this should have been found owing to the shots he had allegedly fired.134 107. On another note, the Court cannot overlook the fact that the State has presented contradictory versions of the events at both the domestic level and before the Commission and the Court. On the one hand, at the time of the events, several state authorities gave statements to the press in which they indicated that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes had died as the result of a confrontation with the State’s law enforcement agents. In particular, the Vice Minister of the Interior indicated that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes “was shot dead last night by agents of Plan Gavilán of the Criminal Investigation Service (SIC), after being tracked down in Barberena, Santa Rosa […]; [h]e exchanged shots with SIC agents who shot him several times and he died.”135 Despite this, the Court notes that, subsequently, several officials stated before the prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ death occurred as a result of a confrontation between private individuals.136 Also, in his June 8, 2007, report, the prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service considered that the cause of death was because “this person was involved in common criminal acts” and could be due to “unknown persons killing him to avoid being victims of his unlawful acts.”137 American Court on March 5, 2019. 131 In this regard, expert witness Carranza Izquierdo indicated that, owing to the injury that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes received to the face, “it was not possible that the firearm was not stained with his blood, contrary to what can be seen on his right hand where they are traces of blood in the nail bed” (that is, the area under the nail). Cf. Expert opinion provided by Guillermo Austreberto Carranza Izquierdo during the public hearing before the Inter-American Court on March 5, 2019. 132 Cf. Expert report of Dr. Guillermo Austreberto Carranza Izquierdo, of June 3, 2008 (evidence file, folio 243). 133 Cf. Expert report of Dr. Guillermo Austreberto Carranza Izquierdo, of June 3, 2008 (evidence file, folio 243 and 247). See also, Expert opinion provided by Guillermo Austreberto Carranza Izquierdo during the public hearing before the InterAmerican Court on March 5, 2019. 134 Cf. On this point, expert witness Guillermo Carranza indicated that: “[a]t any crime scene, the protocol is that, if there is evidence of a gunfight, in which a firearm is found, as in this case, an atomic absorption test must be performed”; that is, a test to analyze the residue produced by a possible shot, and this was not done in the instant case.” Cf. Expert report of Dr. Guillermo Austreberto Carranza Izquierdo, of June 3, 2008 (evidence file, folio 243 and 247). See also, Expert opinion provided by Guillermo Austreberto Carranza Izquierdo during the public hearing before the Inter-American Court on March 5, 2019. 135 Cf. Newspaper article in “El Periódico” entitled “Abaten a tiros a uno de los reos prófugos,” [One of the escaped prisoners shot dead] on November 15, 2005 (evidence file, file of the procedure before the Commission, volume II, folio 436). Police superintendent and head of the SIC [V.S.D.], also indicated this and confirmed to the media that “they had been following the fugitive for four days and were able to locate him last night, and when asking him to stop, he took out a gun, with the aforementioned result.” Cf. Newspaper article in “La Hora” entitled “Catorce siguen fugados” [14 still on the run], on November 15, 2005 (evidence file, folio 438). According to another newspaper, referring to the confrontation with SIC agents, police superintendent V.S.D. indicated “[w]hen the detective asked [Mr. Ruiz Fuentes] to identify himself, he took out a gun and began to fire at them. During the exchange of fire, the fugitive fell to the ground.” Cf. Newspaper article in “Nuestro Diario” entitled “Prófugo abatido en enfrentamiento” [Fugitive killed in confrontation], on November 15, 2005 (evidence file, folio 440). 136 Mr. Marroquín Solis, an official of the Criminal Investigation Directorate of the National Civil Police of Cuilapa, Santa Rosa, made a statement in this sense, indicating that “it was not possible to establish the identity of the individuals responsible for this act; it was only established that they were unknown persons who were pursuing the deceased and who killed him.” Cf. Statement by Juan José Marroquín Solis before the district prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service, Cuilapa, Santa Rosa, on March 21, 2006 (evidence file, folio 313). In his statement before the prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service on November 7, 2007, Mr. Meregildo Cermeño Cabrera made the same assertion. Cf. Statement of Meregildo Cermeño Cabrera before the prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service on November 7, 2007 (evidence file, folios 316 and 317). 137 Cf. Report of the district prosecutor addressed to the Coordinator of the Technical Secretariat of the Public Prosecution 27