31 137. The Commission observes that the statements of former hostage Hidetaka Ogura, as well as those of Raúl Robles Reynoso and Marcial Teodorico Torres Arteaga, the police agents responsible for guarding the house next door to the Ambassador’s residence, are consistent in asserting that in the yard of that residence where two groups of hostages had been taken by way of a tunnel, MRTA member Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, alias “Tito,” had concealed himself among them, but was exposed by a hostage. As a result, the aforementioned police agents tied his hands, placed him on the ground and, after they had notified their hierarchical superior, Colonel Zamudio Aliaga, a commando appeared and took Mr. Cruz Sánchez back through the tunnel to the Ambassador’s residence. According to the statements, at the time he was turned over to the soldier and taken back through the tunnel to the Ambassador’s residence, Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez was alive, unarmed and neutralized. What is more, according to the statements of the police agents who had apprehended him, Mr. Cruz Sánchez was afraid and even “begged for his life,” at which time they told him that “nothing was going to happen to him” and then handed him over to the soldier who took him back through the tunnel. 138. That same night, the body of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez turned up in the Ambassador’s residence with a gunshot wound to the posterior region of the neck and, according to the report on the removal of the body, with “a grenade [in his hand] that he had not managed to throw.” One of the witnesses who had detained him, police agent Reyes Reynoso, stated before the ordinary criminal court that “he thought he would be publicly presented as a prisoner [and therefore] he was surprised to see on the news that all of the MRTA members had died in combat…” He had remained silent, however, “for fear of some reprisal from the system…” 161 139. In addition to the foregoing, it should be noted that the partial reference autopsy performed the day after the events determined that Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez had received a “severe gunshot wound” to the right side of his head with exposed fractures and loss of brain matter, and that he had died of “hypovolemic shock.” The autopsies ordered by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in 2001 indicated that, based on an analysis of trajectory of the gunshot wound, it could be inferred that Mr. Cruz Sánchez “would have had to have been immobilized before being shot,” and that he was “positioned lower than the assailant, who was behind and to [his] left.” 140. The Commission recalls that the Court has determined that the State must prove that the government authorities attempted to use other, less lethal means of intervention to no avail, and that the actions of the security forces were necessary and proportionate in relation to the exigencies of the 162 situation, in particular, the threat presented by the victim. 141. In this sense, the IACHR observes that the State has failed to explain why Mr. Cruz Sánchez, after having been detained and taken back inside the Ambassador’s residence, turned up dead, with a bullet in his neck and a grenade in his hand, particularly taking into account that the statements corroborate each other in asserting that his hands were tied and he was unarmed. The IACHR also notes that the form of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez’s death is situated in a context of a government policy that promoted the commission of extrajudicial killings of presumed terrorists by state agents (supra para. 50). 142. In view of the foregoing, the IACHR considers that after he was apprehended, Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez did not pose any danger whatsoever to the hostages or to state agents and, in fact, he had been neutralized by the police agents responsible for guarding the house next door to the Ambassador’s residence. Despite this, the expert examination is clear in its determination that, contrary to what was suggested in the Report on the Removal of the Bodies, Mr. Cruz Sánchez was summarily executed by a coup de grâce to the neck fired by state agents while he was immobilized. This constitutes an extrajudicial execution. 161 Statement by Raúl Robles Reynoso of December 28, 2001, before the Special Provincial Prosecutor for Human Rights. 162 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R.. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166. Para. 108.