death must be deliberate and unjustified.” The Special Rapporteur added that extrajudicial execution should be distinguished from murders committed by public servants who kill: (a) due to recklessness, inexperience, negligence or breach of regulations; (b) in legitimate defense; (c) in combat during an armed conflict, and (d) by the rational, necessary and proportionate use of force, in their capacity as those responsible for law enforcement.30 25. Although the case law of the IACtHR has not defined clearly the content of this action, case by case it has defined its characteristics, when declaring that an extrajudicial execution has been committed.31 B. The facts of the case correspond to a hypothesis of extrajudicial execution 26. Even though, in this judgment, the IACtHR has not ruled specifically on the existence of extrajudicial executions, we consider that there are sufficient probative elements that clearly support this conclusion. 27. First, several elements of the context of extrajudicial executions in Venezuela at the time of the facts form part of the factual circumstances of this case. Thus: a) The official version of the police forces refers to the deaths of the victims in an alleged “confrontation”;32 b) The incidents took place near the home of one of them, or during police operations or raids;33 c) The facts occurred in the presence of witnesses who stated that one of the victims was wounded and arrested after having been shot several times;34 d) One of the victims, Robert Díaz Loreto, had been wounded before he was placed in the police vehicle;35 e) The scene of the incident could have been altered – the victim was moved from the scene where the incident took place; firearms and shell cases were found; 36 Office in Colombia of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, discussion on military criminal justice organized by the Antioquia Interinstitutional Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. Considerations on the investigation and prosecution of punishable conducts that constitute gross human rights violations or war crimes, September 13, 2005. Available, on December 13, at: https://www.hchr.org.co/index.php/informacion-publica/pronunciamientos/intervenciones-de-ladireccion/407-ano-2005/294-considerations-sobre-la-investigacion-y-el-juzgamiento-de-conductas-puniblesconstitutivas-de-graves-violaciones-de-los-derechos-humanos-o-de-crimenes-de-guerra 30 See, among others: Case of Valenzuela Ávila v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 11, 2019. Series C No. 386; Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2018. Series C No. 368; Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364; Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 17, 2015. Series C No. 292, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287. 31 Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, paras. 41 and 42. 32 Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, paras. 36, 39 and 41. 33 Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, para. 39. 34 Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, para. 77. 35 Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, paras. 76 and 79. 36 7