Burgos was justified in accordance with international law. Nevertheless, as analyzed and determined in the domestic investigation, during the moments prior to the death of Mr. Carlos Uva, according to the testimonies of Mr. Henry Reyes and Edgar Enrique Monzo, Soldier Rodríguez Burgos arrived at the counter-guerrilla unit accompanied by three civilians, among them, according to the testimony of sentry Monzo, one that “seems to be drawing him tied” and “without a shirt”, 212 which corresponds to the description of Mr. Carlos Uva, who, according to the autopsy, had ligature marks on his wrists and was without a shirt. Likewise, after Soldier Burgos indicated that “he was goin to fix it with that man” and that “he knew how to do it”, and being in an apparent state of drunkenness, he participated in the murder of Mr. Carlos Uva, who died of 14 stab wounds inflicted without any justification. 136. The Commission notes that according to the testimony of Mr. Enrique Monso, Soldier Rodríguez Burgos, before depriving Mr. Carlos Uva of his life, alleged that he “was an accomplice of the guerillas and drove a truck” and “he wanted give him trouble because he was a military”. Likewise, after depriving him of his life he attempted to justify this by claiming that he was attacked by a guerilla and he had killed him. Nevertheless, aside from the testimony of Mr. Enriquez Hidalgo, who claimed afterwards that he heard a comment that Mr. Uva employed the “façade”of a sales person driving a truck as he was member of the ELN, there is no evidence or judicial determination whatsoever to sustain the justification asserted by Soldier Rodríguez Burgos to give credence to his version by which Mr. Carlos Uva attacked him because he was a guerilla. Besides, according to the testimonies of the persons who were with him at the disco, the victim was in reality headed to the house of a girlfriend, was organizing a serenade for his father and has been harassed by the military that day. 137. Concerning the manner in which the previous acts may entail the international responsibility of the State, the Inter-American Court, in the Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras Case explained that “whenever a State organ, official or public entity violates one of those rights, this constitutes a failure of the duty to respect the rights and liberties set forth in the Convention.” The Court detailed that this “is independent of whether the organ or official has contravened provisions of internal law or overstepped the limits of his authority.” 213 138. With regard to the engagement of the responsibility of the State for the acts of State agents in these type of circumstances, Resolution 56/83 on the Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, presented to the United Nations General Assembly by the International Law Commission, states that an internationally ilicit act can be attributable to the State for “the conduct of an organ of a State or of a person or entity empowered to exercise elements of governmental authority […] even if it exceeds its authority or contravenes instructions.” 214 139. In light of the preceding, the Commission considers that even though the behavior of Mr. Rodríguez was in contravention of the instructions issued by his superiors, the detainment of Mr. Carlos Uva Velandia, the fear that may be inferred and that he suffered, and the wounds that resulted in depriving a civilian of his life, by a state agent, entail the international responsibility of the State. 140. In addition, the Commission considers that in the narrative of the acts there are indications that more persons could have participated in the death of Mr. Carlos Uva. In this regard, Mr. Rodríguez Burgos maintained at the domestic level that the murder of Mr. Carlos Uva Velandia was perpetrated as an activity planned by his superiors, who would have also participated in the acts. Likewise, according to the testimonies of the sentries of the counter-guerrilla unit, Soldier Rodríguez Burgos arrived in the barracks accompanied by civilians. 212 Annex. 47. Diligence of body collection, June 21, 1992. Annex 1. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Case Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of 29 July 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 170. 213 214 United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 56/83 Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, AG/RES/56/83, 28 January 2002.