5 gun from the holster, so that the officers [of the Criminal Investigation Service – SIC-] shot him to death.” The State argued that the National Civil Police was requested to submit an official report on the events to be sent to the Court. 21. The communications of the Secretary of December 22, 2005 and February 10, 2006, whereby, pursuant to the instructions of the President, the State was again requested to submit without delay official information on the death of Mr. RuizFuentes. 22. The brief of Guatemala of February 21, 2006, whereby the State disclosed its hypothesis of the death of Mr. Ruiz-Fuentes in the sense that it “involved a personal revenge.” 23. The brief of the representatives of March 30, 2006, and its Appendixes, whereby they argued that the State provided different versions of the events involving Mr. Ruiz-Fuentes; therefore, they requested that the Court “order the State to provide an official version” of the death of the beneficiary in order to issue an opinion thereon. 24. The brief of the representatives of April 7, 2006, and its Appendixes, whereby they informed that out of the nineteen people who managed to escape, nine were found by security forces and that re-capture operations were scheduled. Five of the persons who escaped were captured alive, while others were gunned down by security forces upon arrest, apparently as a result of resistance. “The fact that four out of nine persons have found death at the time of arrest reflects an excess in the use of force by the State’s security forces." 25. The brief of the Commission of April 12, 2006, whereby the Commission expressed its concern in the sense that “the information provided by the State regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Hugo Ruiz-Fuentes is conflicting." Moreover, said information does not reflect a follow up of 'the hypothesis’ of the case, as required by a wrongful death, or an investigation of the reasons for the conflicting versions of the events.” CONSIDERING: 1. That Guatemala is a State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. 2. That Article 63(2) of the Convention sets forth that: 2. In cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission. 3. That, given their final and non-appealable nature, pursuant to the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the judgments entered by the Court must be promptly complied with by the State in full. 4. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention sets forth that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any