34 able to get… to the main entrance of Room “I” if it is true that the rooms and hallways adjacent to this room were under the control of commandos from Teams 7 and 8.” 154. Moreover, in his statement before the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Officer Luis Ernesto Gálvez Melgar, a member of the Explosive Deactivation Unit who entered Room I afterward, stated that the aforementioned MRTA members were killed without offering any resistance whatsoever, since he did 167 not see “any weapon around them, besides which the position in which they were found so indicated.” 155. In addition to the foregoing, it should be noted that, as mentioned in the section on the death of Mr. Cruz Sánchez, the bodies were removed without the presence of the proper professionals and the partial reference autopsies performed the day after the events were incomplete, there were no paraffin tests, nor tests on the trajectory and distance of the gunshot wounds. Photographs and filming were forbidden. These autopsies were confined to determining that both had died of “hypovolemic shock,” due to “GSW to the head, thorax and extremities in the case of Mr. Peceros Pedraza and to GSW to the head, thorax and upper left limb,” in the case of Ms. Meléndez Cueva. The autopsies ordered by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in 2001 determined that Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza had received nine gunshot wounds, six of them to the face and thorax, and Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva had received fourteen gunshot wounds, seven to the head, one to the neck and six to the thorax. It was further determined that the trajectory of two of the three gunshot wounds that Mr. Peceros Pedraza received in the head traveled from back to front, and that in the case of Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva, most of the bullets followed a downward path. 156. In relation to the foregoing, it is important to underscore that according to the information in the case file, in the course of Operation Chavín de Huántar the tactic of selective instinctive (or point) shooting was applied, which consists of firing several times at the vital parts of the adversary, “aiming at the head, since that is a vulnerable point.” According to the testimonies given in the domestic venue, “if the enemy was still alive […] he was given the coup de grâce or the so-called “security shot.” 157. The IACHR also observed that, as it will discuss in the chapter on due process guarantees and judicial protection, in view of the patent use of lethal force by state agents, Peru did not open an ex officio investigation into the murder of Peceros Pedraza and Meléndez Cuevas, nor did it conduct detailed and complete autopsies in an opportune manner. It opened a military investigation that absolved all of the military personnel who were being prosecuted in that jurisdiction and the investigation opened in the ordinary jurisdiction has only accused the masterminds. The State also did not submit any information as to whether it has conducted a thorough analysis to determine whether the use of force adhered to the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality; it has merely stated in the military jurisdiction that the deaths occurred during a battle. 158. In light of the above, the IACHR observes that Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza and Herma Luz Meléndez Cuevas received multiple bullet wounds to vital parts of the body consistent with the technique of selective shooting, which was intended to eliminate, rather than neutralize the enemy. In addition to this, the IACHR notes that the statements given by the soldiers involved contain inconsistencies as far as the individual or individuals who allegedly fired the shots and failed to explain how the two MRTA members could have entered through a hallway that was already under the control of the commandos. Moreover, according to Mr. Ogura’s testimony, MRTA members Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza and Herma Meléndez Cueva were alive and surrounded by military personnel who outnumbered them; in other words, they had been neutralized and Herma Meléndez Cueva had even begged for their lives. Finally, the State failed to perform the autopsies in a timely manner immediately after the events, and it has not conducted a serious, impartial and effective investigation into the events. 159. In this sense, it should be recalled that “as the Inter-American Court and the Commission have stated, the level of force used must be justified by the circumstances […] for the purpose of, for example, self-defense, or neutralizing or disarming the individuals involved in a violent confrontation.” 167 Inquiry of the Public Ministry of September 22, 2006, file provided by the State..