(abdominal decubitus) and shot from behind or from the direction of his feet.” In relation to the additional 9 wounds, the Office of the Prosecutor stated that the trajectory indicates that “the body was lying face up (dorsal decubitus) and the shots were fired from the direction of his feet”. 165 The Commission considers that in the record there is no response whatsoever to satisfactorily explain what happened and the specific way in which the totality of the wounds could have happened in combat. 102. Third, the Commission observes that inconsistencies exist in the versions provided by the military personnel and the results of the operation, which hinder the affirmation that it was a confrontation. In this regard, the Commission considers that none of the military personnel identified Mr. Elio Gelves during combat. On the contrary, according to various testimonies, they could not observe the “subversives”. 166 Likewise, the Commission notes that even though the soldiers affirmed it was the “guerrillas” who were the first to fire on them167 and that they “opened fire for approximately 20 minutes”; none of the troops in the alleged confrontation received wounds of any type, particularly considering the version of a soldier that “the guerrillas were approximately twenty” and “the shots came from the front”. 168 Also, even though the large amount of armaments that would have been used by the military consisting of more than 600 rounds of ammunition and 14 grenades, the sole result of the confrontation was the death of one person from the alleged enemy group, Mr. Elio Gelves. 103. Fourth, in relation to the acts immediately prior to the death of Mr. Elio Gelves, the Commission observes that upon establishing that his death was result of acts of State agents, the fact that unknown persons forcibly removed him from his house to support a possible conflict that would take place afterwards, adds to the series of indications of State responsibility, which corresponds to the State to rebut these. 104. The Commission notes that the State indicates that said persons were dressed as civilians and based on the testimony of Mr. Elio Gelves’ father, who said these were “farianos”, to point out that these were guerilla members and not members of the Army, paramilitary or civilians that collaborated with the Army. The Commission observes that the same Mr. Manuel Gelves, afterwards, in other declarations indicated that “the persons who went did not say who they were”, which coincides with Mrs. Griseldina Carrillo who stated that [the persons] “they did not say to which group they belonged or anything.” Likewise, in relation to the acts that took place before the death of Mr. Gelves, the Commission notes: i) that the approximate time of the alleged combat coincides with that in which the parents of Mr. Elio Gelves heard the gunshots close to their house; ii) there is no individualization of the members of the army which allows for the identification of the location occupied by each of them at the time of the operation; iii) at the time of the facts there existed an accredited context of support for the paramilitary forces by the military to commit the extrajudicial executions; and, iv) that even though the next of kin declared on various occasions that they thought it was the Army or paramilitary, this fact was not seriously investigated by the State. The Commission considers that 165 6, 2000. Annex. 39. Fiscal Delgado, Colisión de Competencia, July 30, 1998. Annexed to the written brief of the petitioners, November 166 In this regard, soldier Jhon Jairo Castro Buriticá stated that “[he] did not see any of the subsersives nor how many were they, he doesn’t know where the gunshots were heard from and they shot being on the ground. Annex. 36. Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of Arauca, judgment of Apri 13, 2000. Annexed to the written brief of the petitioners, November 6, 2000. Soldier William Cruz Libreros “says that the rest shot in response of the harassment [….and] does not know how many meters away were the subversive harassers, [he] did not see the subversives, does not recall how many were the soldiers”. Annex. 36. Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of Arauca, judgment of Apri 13, 2000. Annexed to the written brief of the petitioners, November 6, 2000. Soldier Miguel José Hererra Ospina stated that “he shot while standing up, did not see the deceased before nor after, does not recall the name of who comprised the squad … of the trop no one result injured/wounded nor dead.” Annex. 40. Testimony of voluntary soldier William Cruz Libreros before Despacho Promiscuo Municipal, on July 2, 1997. Annexed to the written brief of the petitioners of April 10, 2001. 167 In this regard, soldier Squad Commander, Mauricio Gómez Chacón, stated that “when we were going to cross the road we were shot from different places and we reacted…” Annex. 36. Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of Arauca, judgment of Apri 13, 2000. Annexed to the written brief of the petitioners, November 6, 2000. Meanwhile CP. Mauricio Gómez Chacón” stated “the guerrilla were the first to shoot because as soon as they came to the road they were detected.” Annex. 37. Comandante Décima Octava Brigada, Judge of First Instance, Decision of June 13, 2000. Annexed to the written brief of the petitioners, November 6, 2000. 168 Annex. 40.Testimony of voluntary soldier William Cruz Libreros before Despacho Promiscuo Municipal, on July 2, 1997. Annexed to the written brief of the petitioners of April 10, 2001.