in light of the above elements, the statement said words or Mr. Manuel Gelves on one occasion, which on its own does not conclusively, as argued by the State, rebut that the persons that came to the house of Mr. Gelves were members of the Army or paramilitary who delivered him afterwards to for execution. 105. Fifth, the Commission observes that the labelling that stigmatised Mr. Elio Gelves as a guerilla was based on the premise that he left the house with persons from the guerrillas and that his death happened during a confrontation. Furthermore, this was done based on the armaments and clothing he allegedly wore. The Comission has already explained its considerations in relation to the persons that forcibly removed Mr. Elio Gelves from his house and the inconsistencies in the versions of the military personnel (supra paras. 103 and 104). Likewise, the Commission has already stated that it was not sufficiently validated that Mr. Elio Gelves carried the weapons. (supra para. 100). 106. As to whether the body could have been manipulated to clothe him, the Commission considers that while the death of Mr. Elio Gelves, according to the “Patrol Report” happened between 3:35 and 5:10 AM, the notification to the inspector of the Institute of Legal Medicine was made at 5:45 AM, and removal of the body occurred at 7:55 AM. The above indicates that the body was in the exclusive control of the armed forces for over two hours. 107. The Commission observes that the next of kin of the youth Elio Gelves has consistently described that he left his house with a short and high school pants, and there is no evidence that allows for the possibility he carried his uniform with him. Likewise, in relation to whether the body could have been manipulated, the Commission notes that while First Sergeant Mauricio Chacón169, and Jhon Jairo Castro Buriticá170 indicated the body was “face down” and various statements of the soldiers indicate that said body was not manipulated171, the record of the body collection carried out at the morgue reveals it was found in a different position, “dorsal decubitus”, meaning, face up, without the record establishing whether this was the position at the scene (see infra para. 228). Also, according to Ms. Lucy Vega Blanco, the uniform that Mr. Elio Gelves wore did not comport with his size and “it was too big”. 108. In light of the above findings, the Commission considers that the available evidence does not sustain that Mr. Gelves was in fact wearing, before the time of his death, the uniform the State indicates. In this regard, in this case there are no elements to publicly connect him to the guerrillas. On the contrary, the Commission observes that according to the evidence provided by the petitioners, Mr. Elio Gelves did not belong to the guerrillas and his death caused such outrage in the area that, according to the Municipal Ombudsperson (“Personero Municipal”), a march was held that day and loud demands for justice for his death were expressed by the participants. 109. In summary, the Commission considers that, after the analysis of all the above elements, the State of Colombia has not satisfactorily rebutted the series of indications of the responsibility of State agents for the acts. On the contrary, the evidence supports a series of indications that Mr. Elio Gelves was forcibly removed from his home to be executed by agents of the State, who acted in accordance with one of the modus operandi identified during the time of the acts, namely: i) it pertained to a civilian; ii) he was executed under circunstances which the State did not verify constituted a combat situation, which also permits the view that it was simulated; and iii) in order to justify this simulation, he was accused of being a guerrilla without 169 Annex. 43. Testimony of First Sergeant Mauricio Gómez Chacón before Despacho Promiscuo Municipal, on July 12, 1997. Annexed to the written brief of the petitioners of April 10, 2001. 170 See his quoted statement in Annex. 39. Fiscal Delgado, Colisión de Competencia, July 30, 1998. Annexed to the written brief of the petitioners, November 6, 2000. 171 In relation to the manipulation of the body or weapons, Sergeant Mauricio Gómez Chacón cleared that “no, I know nothing because the order is not to touch the cadavers”. Annex. 43. Testimony of First Sergeant Mauricio Gómez Chacón before Despacho Promiscuo Municipal, on July 12, 1997. Annexed to the written brief of the petitioners of April 10, 2001. Soldier Miguel Herrera Ospina indicated “no, nothing was manipulated”. Annex. 45. Testimony of voluntary soldier Miguel José Herrera Ospina before Despacho Promiscuo Municipal, on July 2, 1997. Annexed to the written brief of the petitioners of April 10, 2001. Soldier William Cruz Librero indicated “I think it was delayed until the body was lifted”. 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.