b.4 Conclusion 94. Based on the analysis and the determinations made in this chapter, the Court concludes that the State is internationally responsible for the violation of the rights recognized in Article 4(2) and 4(6) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Hugo Humberto Ruiz Fuentes. In addition, the State is not responsible for the violation of Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. VIII-2 RIGHT TO LIFE OWING TO THE DEATH OF MR. RUIZ FUENTES114 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 95. The Commission argued that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes died a violent death by firearms on December 14, 2005, almost two months after his escape from prison. It underscored that there were indications of a cover-up by state agents. The Commission noted that: (i) the internal investigation was able to identify that the gun Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was allegedly holding in his hand belonged to the Ministry of the Interior and, specifically, to an officer who indicated that he had lost his firearm, but had not reported this; (ii) the administrative investigation into this situation failed to yield any results, and (iii) there is no record that the State conducted expert appraisals to prove that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was the person who fired the gun. Furthermore, it pointed out that the expert evidence indicated that the shot that hit Mr. Ruiz Fuentes in the right eye had tattooing around it, which indicates that it was fired at a short distance. According to the Commission, this was another indication that no confrontation was involved. The Commission added that the State had held contradictory positions during the processing of the case before the inter-American system, and also in the domestic proceedings in relation to the death of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes. The Commission also emphasized that seven of the escaped prisoners died during the execution of “Plan Gavilán” and that, in the domestic sphere, several state agents had been convicted of perpetrating extrajudicial executions in the context of this plan. Consequently, the Commission concluded that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was extrajudicially executed and, therefore, Guatemala had violated Article 4(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 96. Like the Commission, the representatives indicated that the State had provided contradictory versions concerning the death of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes. They also pointed out that, according to the findings of the autopsy and the expert appraisal of the latter, neither of the two bullets that hit the victim was fired in order to capture him or to stave off an attack. The representatives also argued that, as indicated by a forensic medical report of June 3, 2008, 115 the crime scene was deliberately altered and the body of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was moved from its original position. Regarding the gun found in Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ right hand, they noted that, based on the contents of the said expert appraisal, it was “very difficult, or almost impossible” that Mr. Ruiz Fuente could have continued to hold a weapon. The representatives also pointed out that the gun found in his hand was the property of the Ministry of the Interior, and no explanation had been given to justify finding it in Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ possession. 97. The State contested the attribution of responsibility for the death of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes, indicating that no reliable evidence had ever been presented that would allow this conclusion to be reached. It added that it was based on mere presumptions without any factual elements and that neither the Commission nor the representatives of the alleged victims could prove that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes had been deprived of his right to life intentionally. 98. The State also indicated that “Plan Gavilán” (or “Operation Gavilán”) had been designed 114 Article 4 of the American Convention. Cf. Expert report of Dr. Guillermo Austreberto Carranza Izquierdo, of June 3, 2008 (evidence file, folios 238 to 249). 115 24