11 35. In its application, the Commission makes reference to a sixth victim, killed under the very same circumstances as the five named victims but whose identity is unknown. In the evidence in the case file, the sixth victim appears as N.N./Moisés or N.N./Moisés Ojeda. At the public hearing held on May 28, 2001, the agent for Colombia acknowledged “that in this case, the State’s international responsibility for violation of Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, by virtue of the death of NN/Moisés Ojeda, was conceded.” The Commission made note of this acknowledgement. With the latter, the issue concerning the State’s responsibility for violation of this person’s right to life was settled. * * 36. The application states that seven people were killed in the events that occurred in Las Palmeras, the seventh victim being Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy. The Commission states that one of the victims was purported to have been killed in combat; the Commission, however, is of the view that neither N.N./Moisés Ojeda nor Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy was a combat fatality. In the application, therefore, it asks that the Court Establish the circumstances surrounding the death of a seventh person purported to have been killed in combat (Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy or Moisés Ojeda), to determine whether the right to life recognized in Article 4 of the Convention has been violated [by the State of Colombia] […] In its answer, Colombia acknowledges its responsibility for the deaths of Hernán Javier Cuarán Muchavisoy, Artemio Pantoja Ordóñez, Julio Milciades Cerón Gómez, Wilian Hamilton and Edebraes Cerón Rojas. It also states that the judgments delivered in the local courts and the evidence available indicate that one of the seven victims at Las Palmeras “died in a clash with members of the National Police.” As for the other person, the State contends that it does not have “sufficient evidence to determine whether his death was or was not a violation of the right to life in the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention.” In its observations on the State’s answer, the Commission asserts that based on the evidence Colombia tendered in this case, it has concluded that N.N./Moisés Ojeda was executed by members of the National Police while in their custody. It reasons that: The testimony given by a number of State agents who participated in the operation confirms that the physical features of the person purported to have died in combat do not match those of N/N Moisés; they are more similar to those of Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy. While the Commission cites the testimony of one of those who took part in the operation to conclude that N.N./Moisés Ojeda was the person that the Police executed once they had him in custody, it also calls into question the testimony of other police involved to the effect that Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy died in combat. The Commission “considers that elements are present that make the truth of this aspect of their testimony questionable.” Later, the Commission stated that the evidence is not precise enough to confirm the circumstances under which Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy died: based on these observations with regard to the available data, the Commission believes that the circumstances of the death of Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy and, therefore, the