3. The moment of Mr. Valencia Hinojosa’s death 194. In situations that involve a potential loss of life because of the actions of state agents, the Commission underscores that a criminal investigation undertaken motu proprio should be capable of getting to the truth about what happened. However, in cases such as this, in which the investigation breached the minimum guarantees established by the American Convention, the Commission reiterates that the lack of a diligent and effective investigation and, therefore, the absence of a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events, may be a factor to be taken into account in establishing the alleged violation and the attendant international responsibility.165 195. The Inter-American Court has held that when someone dies in violent circumstances that might involve state agents, the State has the obligation to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of what happened and to disprove accusations regarding its responsibility, through valid evidence. 166 As the Court has held, “in proceedings to determine human rights violations the State cannot rely on the defense that the complainant has failed to present evidence when it cannot be obtained without the State's cooperation. 167 Accordingly, when there is evidence of the participation of state agents, the state must take all necessary steps to ascertain the responsibility of the individuals concerned. 168 196. Using that criterion, in the absence of a diligent investigation, the Inter-American Court has found that it is possible to consider the State responsible for injuries exhibited by a person who is in the custody of state agents.169 Furthermore, the Court has held that when a State takes no additional steps to verify the circumstances in which a potential violation of human rights occurred, that situation is imputable to it. Therefore, its own omissions cannot be used to refute the violations denounced by the victims. 170 197. In the present case, as the Commission has already established, the investigation undertaken in the police jurisdiction did not satisfy the minimum requirements of independence and impartiality or the standard of due diligence. Therefore, the expert examinations and the conclusions of the police authorities regarding the suicide hypothesis, in themselves cannot be accepted by the Commission as refuting the participation of agents of the State in Mr. Valencia's death. Hence, the impossibility, even now, of establishing what happened is imputable to the State. 198. However, based on the conclusions in the sections above, the actions of the policemen Cabezas and Piedras (i) occurred in the absence of specific rules and training for police officers in criteria for employing and modulating the "use of force”; (ii) one of them announced at the beginning of the operation his intention to do Mr. Valencia harm; and (iii) a child was threatened with death for the purpose of locating him. Furthermore, the policemen who took part in the deployment of the police operation used weapons of different calibers and continuous fire as the only means to "intimidate" Mr. Valencia, without exploring other possible options and without complying with the principles that, in accordance with international law, must be observed before using lethal force for such purposes. 165 I/A Court H.R.,Case of J. L. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, par. 353. 166I/A Court H.R.Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, par. 80. In a similar sense, see also Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs.Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, par. 111. 167I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, par. 154, and Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, par. 128. 168I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, par. 97. 169I/A Court H.R., Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010, Series C No. 220, par. 134. 170 I/A Court H.R.,Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, par. 334.