execution and failed to corroborate a confrontation. In addition, the State has provided no evidence to refute this conclusion. The Commission considered that the State had failed to comply with the obligation to respect and ensure the right to life of Narciso Barrios and had violated Article 4(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to his detriment. 59. The representatives agreed with the Inter-American Commission as regards the detention and murder of Benito Antonio Barrios, and added that Article 43 of the Venezuelan Constitution establishes “the inviolability [of the right to life,] and the special obligation to protect individuals deprived of liberty or subjected in some way to the State’s authority.” In addition, they indicated that: (a) the detention constituted an act of abuse of authority, it was not ordered by the competent authority, and its purpose was not to bring the victim before to judge or other official authorized by law to decide whether it was lawful, and (b) Benito Antonio Barrios was in good health at the time of his arrest; therefore, Venezuela must provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of what happened and disprove the allegations regarding its responsibility with valid probative elements.” They held that “in the absence of an investigation that refutes this assumption, [his] death […] must be considered an extrajudicial execution.” Consequently, they asked the Court to declare the violation of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Benito Antonio Barrios. 60. In addition, they indicated that the number of shots fired at Narciso Barrios was completely disproportionate, because he was unarmed. Moreover, they stated that “[i]t is not possible to determine a single element that would justify the actions of the State agents.” They also affirmed that Narciso Barrios experienced great suffering and fear prior to his death and, consequently, asked the Court to declare the violation of the rights to life and to personal integrity of Narciso Barrios, established in Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 61. The State indicated that in the cases of Benito Antonio Barrios and Narciso Barrios it “had verified that there had been complicity among the agents of the Aragua state police and that they simulated a police confrontation.” In both cases, officials have been charged with the acts. ii. Facts 62. In the early morning hours of August 28, 1998, four Aragua state police officials removed Benito Antonio Barrios from his residence, beat him, and shot and wounded him.63 His two sons, Jorge Antonio and Carlos Alberto Ortuño,64 were in the house, witnessed the initial assault against their father and went to the house of their grandmother, Justina 63 Cf. Record of interview with Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño before the Technical Unit of the Judicial Police on January 27, 1999 (file of attachments to the Commission’s Report No. 11/10, tome I, attachment 1, folio 2927); Affidavit made by Carlos Alberto Ortuño (merits file, tome III, folio 1053), and Record of interview with Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño by the Forensic and Scientific Crime Investigation Unit on January 5, 2006 (file of attachments to the Commission’s Report No. 11/10, tome I, attachment 1, folio 2940). See also, Police record of the Barbacoas Public Order and Security Force of August 28, 1998 (file of attachments to the Commission’s Report No. 11/10, tome I, attachment 1, folio 2921) and Indictment of the Transitory Regime Prosecutor of April 17, 2007 (file of attachments to the answering brief, tome I, attachment 1, folio 4478). 64 The Court observes that the Commission and the representatives refer to Carlos Alberto Ortuño with the last names “Barrios Ortuño” or “Ortuño Ortuño”; however, there are several official documents that refer to “Carlos Alberto Ortuño” in the file. Also, on his identity document forwarded with the affidavit his complete name appears as Carlos Alberto Ortuño; the Court will therefore use this form of his name in the judgment. 24