44 Due to the inherent nature of the events, it is impossible to know with certainty which of all of the shots fired caused the death of each one of the MRTA members, much less who did it. That being the case, the commission of international law violations [jus gentium], abuse of authority and qualified homicide to the detriment of the aforementioned MRTA members cannot be proved inasmuch as the deaths of the rebels were the result of the battles, inasmuch as it has not been proved that the alleged executions actually occurred, given the lack of incontrovertible and indisputable evidence in the record that would indicate otherwise, particularly if the events took place in a situation involving crossfire. The most rigorous and complete expert examinations relating to the thanatological studies of the bodies […] took place more than four years after the events occurred, which means, for example that signs such as powder burns [signo de Benassi] used to determine the proximity of the firearm when it was shot […] are not found […] 196. In other words, in its analysis of the use of lethal force by military personnel, the military court based its reasoning on generalities such as how the MRTA members “at all times demonstrated [their] belligerence and that the commandos acted “in the legitimate defense of human life.” The military tribunal also discarded the testimony of Mr. Ogura, did not take into account the statements given before the Public Prosecutor’s Office that corroborated the former, and finally, cast doubt on the expert examinations performed in 2001. 197. Moreover, the State has not conducted a judicial investigation of the arbitrary and extrajudicial executions in relation to the direct perpetrators of the death of Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza and Herma Luz Meléndez, other than that conducted in the military jurisdiction. It also did not conduct such an investigation in respect of the direct perpetrators in the death of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, even though this matter had not been aired in the military jurisdiction. Here, the IACHR observes that the next of kin did not have access to the military criminal proceedings against the individuals involved in the executions, nor did they have any recourse to challenge the judging of the facts by that jurisdiction since the process was conducted in secrecy and, as the State contended, no remedy existed to appeal the decision of the military court. 198. In any event, the IACHR recalls that based on the facts in the instant case, it has been established that from the standpoint of international law, state agents used excessive and lethal force and the State is therefore liable for the extrajudicial execution of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza and Herma Luz Meléndez. Despite this, the acts remain in a state of total impunity. 199. The facts outlined above are a clear example of what the Commission stated previously in relation to human rights violations committed by members of the armed forces and tried by the military jurisdiction, in the sense that “where the State allows investigations to be conducted by the organs potentially implicated, independence and impartiality are clearly compromised [...] The consequence of such compromise is insulation of those presumably responsible from the normal operation of the legal 202 system.” In this sense, the IACHR recalls that airing serious human rights violations in the military justice system, as in the instant case, constitutes a violation inter alia of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 203 and 25 of the American Convention. 200. As evidenced in the instant case, in which deaths resulted from the excessive use of force, contrary to its international obligations 204 the State has not conducted a serious, independent, 202 IACHR. Report N° 10/95, Case 10.580, Manuel Stalin Bolaños, Ecuador, Annual Report of the IACHR 1995, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.91, Doc. 7, rev. 3, April 3, 1996, para. 48. 203 IACHR. Annual Report of 1993. OEA/Ser.L/V/III.85. February 11, 1994. 204 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 and 88; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al (Detention Center of Catia), Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 80; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Continues…