that the complainant has failed to present evidence when it is the State that has control of the means to clarify events that occurred within its territory.128 164. The Commission and the representatives made various assertions related to the activity carried out by state agents in the search for Mr. Valenzuela within the "Gavilán Plan", created between 2005 and 2006 by the State to recapture the 19 fugitives from the maximumsecurity prison of Escuintla, "El Infiernito", and focused their allegations on a series of actions carried out in other investigations related to other fugitives from "El Infiernito". 129 165. Therefore, the State indicated that although it considers the existence of a plan to recapture the escaped prisoners to be incontrovertible, within which nine fugitives were recaptured, it did not consider it “pertinent to affirm that the execution of that plan resulted in the death of seven people.” 166. Given the arguments of the parties and the Commission, it is up to this Court to examine the circumstances in which Mr. Valenzuela's death occurred and whether it is attributable to the State, taking the body of evidence into account. 167. However, it is proven that on October 22, 2005, Mr. Valenzuela and 18 others, escaped from the maximum-security prison “El Infiernito”, and that on that same date the State created “Operation Gavilán” with the purpose of carrying out the search and recapture of the 19 fugitive prisoners. In addition to this, it is proven that Mr. Valenzuela died violently together with EMF (both fugitives from justice) on December 8, 2006, by firearms in the heart of the city of La Gomera, Escuintla, and his body was not delivered to his relatives.130 168. In addition, in the oral hearing of early evidence offered before the Court of First Instance for Criminal, Drug-Trafficking and Environmental Crime on February 15, 2012 in case C-01076-2010-004, Ms. MFF, who formed part of the “Gavilán Plan”, declared that within the Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, para. 135, and Case of Arrom Suhurt et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 95. 129 Such as: a) a police officer, who participated in "Operation Gavilán", declared that in the framework of this operation they had been given the direct order that "those who were charged with serious crimes [...] did not have to go back to jail”; b) Domestically, at least three agents who participated in the “Operation Gavilán” were convicted of committing extrajudicial executions within its framework. For example, on August 8, 2013, the former head of Criminal Investigation of the National Civil Police was sentenced for the crime of extrajudicial execution of seven prisoners from the Pavón Prison Farm and three prisoners from the maximum-security prison “El Infiernito” that occurred between 2005 and 2006. “According to the CICIG in [said] judgment […] the [c]ourt considered ‘the interference of the authorities in the actions carried out for the extrajudicial execution of the fugitives was obvious'”. In addition, the Commission and the representatives argued that there are indications of a possible cover-up by the State, since the body of Mr. Valenzuela was not delivered to his family, since, according to State agents, this was due to his criminal actions and that investigations were necessary. 130 Mrs. Florinda López de López, mother of Mr. Valenzuela, in her statement made before the Municipality of Santa Lucía de Cotzumalguapa, on September 2, 2009, indicated that she was aware of the death of her son on December 8, 2006, by means of the news item. Then, on Sunday December 10, 2006, she approached the place where she was able to identify his body. She also indicated that she asked “the person in charge of said morgue to give [her] the body of […her] son […], [but they did not give it to her,] because she did not have an identity card to identify [herself], so […specified that] […she went] to the Public Prosecutors’ Office [to] ask for [them] to give [her] the body of [her] son so that he could be transferred to the Caballo Blanco subdivision, where he lived, but [they] denied the transfer, arguing that they had orders not to deliver the body” (Testimonial Statement of Florinda Ávila (Florinda López de López), supra. In this regard, the Court notes that the assertions made by Mr. Valenzuela's mother are consistent with her statement given before this Court in a public hearing on March 7, 2019. In this regard, Mr. Saulo Daniel Ruiz, Mr. Valenzuela's brother-in-law, in his statement given before the Municipality of Santa Lucía, Cotzumalguapa on December 9, 2006, physically recognized the body of Mr. Valenzuela (Cf. Statement of Saulo Daniel Ruiz, supra). In addition, through a press outlet, on December 10, 2006, it was reported that “[a] group of unknown individuals shot and killed Tirso Román Valenzuela.” (Cf. http://www.radiolaprimerisima.com/noticias/7234/asesinan-a-uno-de-los-principales-criminales-en-guatemala/). 128 41