32 would have been eyewitnesses on the day of the events, their statements would not by themselves demonstrate the specific circumstances under which the alleged victims would have been executed at that place. Moreover, the statements made in some testimonies refer to what was heard from third parties. The autopsies made by the Police Department itself show that each of the bodies of the three alleged victims had between five and twelve gunshots in various parts of the body93. This evidence is not conclusive regarding the way in which the alleged victims would have died. On the other hand, the State did not present any evidence, other then the aforementioned military report itself, suggesting that the alleged victims would have been carrying arms at the time of their death, nor that one of them would have been the perpetrator of the alleged gunshot received by a military agent. Even more, Mr. José Miguel Caicedo Cobeña was recovering from an operation according to the evidence submitted. 108. However, with respect to the argument put forward by the State regarding the importance of the lack of any domestic judicial decision (supra para. 100), besides the aforementioned (supra para. 88-90) this Court has held that “whenever the use of force [by state agents] results in the 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”94. Certainly, in proceedings over alleged violations of human rights, the defence of the State cannot stand on the impossibility of the plaintiff to submit evidence which, in most cases, cannot be obtained without the cooperation of the State95. Furthermore, there is no evidence demonstrating that agents of the armed forces who participated in the operation attempted to use less lethal means of intervention in the specific case of the alleged victims, and the State did not prove that the action of its security forces was necessary and proportional in relation to the exigencies of the situation. Under the aforementioned criteria, the use of lethal force by state agents against individuals who no longer represent a threat, such as individuals under custody of the authorities, would amount to an extrajudicial execution, in flagrant violation of Article 4 of the Convention. 109. Finally, the suitable way of determining what happened was an appropriate control and verification of the legitimacy of the use of force, through an investigation of the facts at the domestic level (supra paras. 67, 88-90, 94). Moreover, considering the facts set out in the previous paragraphs and in accordance with articles 1(1) and 4 of the American Convention, the Court considers that the State had the obligation to investigate the death of Mr. Zambrano Vélez, Mr. Caicedo Cobeña and Mr. Caicedo Cobeña. The analysis of the obligation to ensure the right to life through a serious, complete and effective investigation of the facts will be made in Chapter VIII of this Judgment. In order to decide on the violation of Article 4 of the Convention in this case, it is sufficient to say that the State has not effectively ensured the right enshrined in the said provision. * * * 110. In conclusion, considering that the following have been established: the illegitimate use of force in the operation carried out by the Ecuadorian Armed Forces in the Batallón neighborhood of the City of Guayaquil on March 6, 1993; the lack of a satisfactory and convincing explanation by Cf. autopsies of Mr. Wilmer Zambrano Vélez, Mr. Segundo Olmedo Caicedo Cobeña and Mr. José Miguel Caicedo Cobeña (annexes to the application, annexes 1, 2 and 3, folios 513, 515 and 517). 93 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention center of Catia), supra note 31, para. 80; Case of Miguel CastroCastro Prison, supra note 14, para. 273, and Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 61, para. 120. Similarly, see also Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 75, para. 111. 94 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 75, para. 135. See also Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 154. and Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 128. 95