Japón”, as conducted by the Special Military Judge, Special Military Prosecutor, and National Intelligence Service,369 and the subsequent transfer of the bodies to the Central Hospital of the National Police of Peru (supra paras. 169 and 170). The content of this record, however, has been challenged by domestic judicial authorities, who do not deny the possibility that the scene of the events could have been altered, especially considering that the removal of the bodies of the MRTA members took place the following day after the operation was completed, and the evidence had not been properly secured.370 291. In its examination of the evidence in the case file, the Court will determine whether the hypotheses put forward by the Commission and the representatives of the alleged victims provide an explanation reasonable enough to hold prima facie that the alleged victims died in circumstances in which they had ceased participation in the hostilities and, moreover, were in State custody. This Court has found in similar circumstances that the burden of proof is reversed, and it falls to the State to provide a satisfactory, convincing explanation of the incident and refute any arguments about its responsibility, by means of acceptable evidentiary material.371 B.3 Circumstances surrounding the death of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez and the alleged international responsibility of the State 292. The evidence in the case file indicates that Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, alias “Tito”, was found dead on a concrete slab in the outside hallway of the residence of the Japanese ambassador, contiguous to the house of the neighboring NGO known as “house No. 1”. 372 The body presented a gunshot wound that had entered into the back left area of the neck and Cf. Report 01/1st Div FFEE Operation “Chavín de Huántar” (hostage rescue operation) April 30, 1997, p. 11 (evidence file, volume I, annex 2.a to the case submission brief, folio 52). 369 370 For example, the verdict by the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court held for the record that “[…] there was a possibility of moving the bodies and lethal objects prior to the ingress of personnel from UDEX [Explosives Deactivation Unit]”. Ruling by the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, October 15, 2012 (evidence file, volume XX, annexed to the representatives’ observations on the State’s preliminary objections, folio 13540). Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 111, y Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 183. 371 Cf. Ruling by the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, October 15, 2012 (evidence file, volume XX, annexed to the representatives’ observations on the State’s preliminary objections, folios 13604 to 13614). 372