did it because he had made threats.” 91 The Commission observes that the evidence indicates that the alias “Careleche” corresponds to Mr. “SLV. Reymund Piñéres”, who was part of the patrol assigned to the military roadblock. 92 In his statement, this soldier stated he previously “had not seen […] the subject on the motorcycle” and that “at no time” had he encountered “the today deceased, nor the wife or partner nor the sister of the subject.” Likewise he stated that “at no time” had he “entered the shop or liquor shop of Mr. Miguel.” 93 72. Edidxon Villamizar Durán stated that “following the death of Gustavo and, because he claimed the body, he became the object of remarks and harassment by the National Police. He stated that where “he crossed paths with them they would call him guerrillero and Eleno.” He stated that one day “he lost his nerve and pushed one of them and told them if they were going to kill him to do it […] in front of all the people, their reaction was to leave the place.” He stated “those police men were […] of the SIJIN, who questioned him the day the claimed the body.” 94 73. Mr. Gustavo Villamizar Lizarazo stated that the day following the death of his son “a sign appeared on the wall of my house, […] [that] said “El ELN son unas putas” Att. La Simacota.” Likewise, he stated that the next day his wife and his daughters “went back to the cemetery and found the grave with a burned crown and that the remaining flowers had been thrown around.” 95 b. Considerations of the Commission 74. The Commission observes that in the present case there are various elements present that must be taken into consideration when establishing whether the facts occurred as indicated by the State in the context of a confrontation between the army, in the exercise of legitimate self-defense, or whether this was an extrajudicial execution, as indicated by the petitioners. When carrying out this assessment the Commission recalls that whenever the use of force by state agents results in death or injuries to one or more individuals, the State has the obligation to give a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events and to rebut allegations over its liability, through appropriate evidentiary elements. 96 75. In this regard, the Commission considers that the alleged confrontation is verified by the State, fundamentally, through the following evidenciary elements: the testimony of the military men; the finding of a variety of armaments in a bag next to the body of Mr. Villamizar, containing two grenades, bullet cartridges and a gun; and the report from the “Ballistic Laboratory” stating that the gun was fired without being able to establish the time or date”, that “its percussion in the fulminant is weak” as well as the shell found at the crime scene that has characteristics of “identity with the patterns” of the gun found (see infra para. 205). 76. In relation to the position of the State, the Commission first notes that technical tests were not carried out to determine if the found gun was actually fired by Mr. Villamizar. In this regard, the 91 Concretely referred to the fact described by Maribel Villamizar Durán quoted supra. Also added that the the next day of the facts “we were having lunch in a restaurant but I do not remember the name of the restaurante nor the location where it is, that time the soldiers came and along with them came “careleche” Annex 2. Testimony rendered by Mrs. Ludy Lizarazo Vega before Municipal Ombudsperson, August 20, 1996. Annexed to the communication of the petitioners received on March 12, 2001. 92Annex. 24. Diligence rendered by SLV. Mr. Reymund Piñeres before Court 124 of Military Criminal Instruction, October 26, 1996. Annexed to the written brief of the State received on October 29, 2010. 93Annex. 24. Diligence rendered by SLV. Mr. Reymund Piñeres before Court 124 of Military Criminal Instruction, October 26, 1996. Annexed to the written brief of the State received on October 29, 2010; 94 Annex. 12. Testimony of Edidxon Villamizar Durán before Notary Public, October 15, 2010. Annex. 8. Complaint rendered by the citizen Gustavo Villamizar Lizarazo before the Office of the Municipal Ombudsperson, August 20, 1996. Annexed to the communication of the petitioners of April 29, 2010. 95 96 Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Case Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166. para. 79; I/A Court H.R. Case Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150. para. 80; I/A Court H.R., Case of Baldeón-García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 120.