205. The Commission observes the actions of the NG members who conducted the activities of the First Anti-subversive Course, [noting that] they derive chiefly from noncompliance with the operations order issued for that purpose. Given the lack of justification and clarification of those actions, these facts, considered as a whole, are by any measure incompatible with any regulation or procedure governing the action of State security forces. 206. In the Commission’s view, this action by members of the NG, the existence of a first official version that was later withdrawn in the judicial proceedings without any explanation, the delay and irregularities identified in the collection and examination of the evidence without meeting the minimum requirements of independence and impartiality have had a direct effect on the impunity found in the instant case and the lack of access by the parents of Mr. Ortiz to the truth, despite their many efforts to learn what happened. 207. Hence, the IACHR reiterates that it does not have additional elements to resolve the dispute over whether or not he was wounded in the “rabbit hole,” but beyond this debate and in application of the standards described, the Commission finds it sufficiently credible that the military personnel acted outside the framework established for the use of force in the context of the case, doing so, moreover, under conditions that posed a high risk to the life of the victim created by their own negligence. In addition, it has been sufficiently proven that, despite the real risk to the life of the victim, the State agents did not put the necessary measures in place to protect him in the event of an emergency. Moreover, the flawed investigation conducted by the State has not validly and comprehensively elucidated the circumstances and responsibilities in his death. 208. The Commission therefore considers that, given the failure to diligently and effectively clarified the facts and the evidence provided, the State did not fulfill its obligation to guarantee the right to life of Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández. As the Inter-American Court has stated on other occasions,276 reaching any other conclusion would imply allowing the State to take refuge in the negligence, ineffectiveness, and partiality of the investigation to tolerate a situation in which the truth is unknown and evade its international responsibility. 209. Hence, the Commission considers the State responsible for violating the right to life established in Article 4.1 of the American Convention in connection with the obligation of respect and guarantee established in Article 1.1 of that same instrument, to the detriment of Johan Alexis Ortiz. B. On the events alleged to violate the personal integrity of Johan Alexis Ortiz and the investigations pursued as a result of these events 210. Below, the IACHR will proceed to conduct an analysis of the law in regard to two complaints lodged by the petitioners concerning a possible violation of the physical integrity of Johan Alexis Ortiz: the first, concerning the allegation of torture made during the judicial proceedings launched in the wake of his death; and the second, concerning the time he remained without appropriate medical care after receiving the gunshot wounds. In both cases, the Commission will also examine the complaint concerning the failure to investigate these events. On the allegation of torture made during the judicial proceedings 211. The IACHR has stressed that the Convention prohibits the use of torture or the cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of persons under any circumstances. The Commission has 276 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, Par. 9; I/A Court H.R., Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, Par. 356.