military personnel involved were inconsistent as to the person or persons who had shot the MRTA members, and moreover, they could not explain how these guerrillas had entered through the hallway, which had already been brought under the control of the commandos; (vi) the State did not perform timely, complete autopsies immediately after the incident, nor did it conduct a conscientious, impartial, effective investigation of what had happened. The Commission added that forensic evidence “suggest[ed] extrajudicial execution [of these two MRTA fighters]” and that, as in the case of Cruz Sánchez, “the circumstances of death [had likely been] covered up through actions and omissions at the crime scene.” The Commission added that the State had not given a consistent explanation of the way these MRTA members had died or about the necessity and proportionality of the use of force. 252. The representatives agreed with the Commission, adding that they “found it more than proven that at the time of [his alleged execution], Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez had been unarmed and posed no threat, and therefore the use of lethal force against him could not be justified in any sense.” They added that to date, “the State ha[d] not offered any convincing explanation to the contrary.” They concluded, “[t]here could be no doubt, then, that Mr. Cruz Sánchez had been rendered hors de combat”, and thus, “the use of lethal force against him was absolutely illegal and the same conclusion obtains even if, by analogy, we were to draw on the provisions of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.” They asserted, “the State has given no convincing explanation as to how, after he had been captured unarmed, he could have gained access to a grenade, and has not shown any evidence that he may have attempted to use it; [they have also failed] to give any explanation as to why, if he was allegedly in combat, he received just one bullet, which could have been possible only if the victim had been immobilized.” 253. The representatives also made reference to the deaths of Meléndez Cueva and Peceros Pedraza, agreeing substantially with the arguments of the Commission, and stating that “there [was] abundant evidence […] showing that they [had been] executed arbitrarily by agents of the State.” They pointed to “the testimony of former hostage Hidetaka Ogura, who had observed two members of the MRTA, Ms. Meléndez Cueva and a man he could not recognize, surrounded by military personnel.” He then heard her saying “don’t kill him” or “don’t kill me” or “don’t kill us.” That is, both were hors de combat, and therefore it was not necessary to use force, much less, lethal force.” Although military personnel from the Delta Eight squad who were responsible for taking control of Room “I” had made statements that “these [persons] were armed and died in a confrontation”, the representatives found that such statements contained serious contradictions. They commented that “the forensic evidence [was] not consistent with the existence of an alleged confrontation.” The representatives concluded that “the theory that Mr. Peceros Pedraza and Ms. Meléndez Cueva died in an armed clash [is] false, and affirmed that “they [were] executed after being captured in the circumstances described by former hostage Hidetaka Ogura, after they had ceased to be a threat and were pleading for their lives, and this should be considered a form of surrender.” 254. The State said that Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez was one of the MRTA members “who [had] put up the most resistance at the time of the hostage rescue” and that “he was the one who [threw] grenades into the hallway at the commandos.” This was why, according to the State, Cruz Sánchez “had no intention whatsoever of surrendering.” The State of Peru also denied that Cruz Sánchez had received just one bullet during the hostage rescue operation, and it did not “understand why such important information had been omitted from the forensic anthropology report by Clyde Snow and José Pablo Baraybar.” It pointed out that the report by the Forensic Medical Institute “showed that ‘Tito’, NN14, also ha[d] been struck by a projectile in the area of the abdomen-pelvis.” The State therefore believed that the forensic anthropology report contained “unfortunate errors”. The State also made reference to the testimony by Hidetaka Ogura, noting that “no other hostage, even the ones named by Ogura,