has confirmed his story.” The State then discussed the statements made by officers Robles Reynoso and Torres Arteaga of the National Police of Peru, maintaining that “there [we]re several contradictions in the statements made by these officers.” The State concluded that the arguments by the Commission and the representatives “did not meet the necessary threshold to be able to assert that there had been an extrajudicial execution in the case of [Cruz Sánchez], resulting from a single bullet preceded by a situation of immobilization.” In the State’s view, therefore, “the evidence and expert statements brought forward by the State of Peru in the process before the Inter-American Court show that other alternatives or hypotheses could explain the death of [Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez].” 255. The State asserted that it was essential to recognize “the circumstances of armed conflict to understand that the taking of lives of the terrorist combatants was not arbitrary […] [and to recall] that the illegal violence practiced by the terrorists, which was [...] ‘imminent, immediate and left neither alternatives nor time to reflect or deliberate,’ had made it necessary; thus the intervention and their deaths in combat were not arbitrary; indeed, they had occurred in obedience to an even higher standard than that required by international instruments [themselves].” It noted, “[wi]th regard to the statement by Ogura, several declarations had been taken from the commandos who rescued the hostages and from hostages themselves to the effect that visibility at the time of the rescue was negligible and they could not even see the palms of their own hands.” To this should be added, in the view of the State, that “from the site where the ladder had been set up to evacuate the Japanese hostages, the angle of vision made it impossible to see inside the room, or even into the hallway.” The statements by Hidetaka Ogura, added the State, “[we]re not consistent over the course of the criminal process in the domestic courts, and later, internationally.” 256. The State also allowed for the contradictions between statements by the commandos and the events that occurred in the room labeled “I”, noting that this could have been due “to the poor visibility” in the room at the time of the facts. The State concluded, therefore, that based on “[t]he evidence and circumstances as described, it is clear that Hidekata Ogura was not telling the truth and [that Meléndez Cueva and Peceros Pedraza] died in combat when they entered the room with firearms to stop the evacuation of the group of hostages present there.” B. Considerations of the Court B.1 The right to life and analysis of the use of force in the circumstances and context of the facts in this case. 257. The Court recalls Article 4(1) of the American Convention, 306 that everyone has the right to have his or her life respected. The Court has held repeatedly that the right to life holds a central position in the American Convention as the essential precondition for the exercise of all the other rights.307 Article 27(2) of the Convention further states that this right is one of the fundamental rights that cannot be derogated insofar as it is enshrined as one of the rights that may not be suspended in time of war, public danger or other emergency that threatens the independence or security of States Parties.308 It reads: “Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” 306 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144, and Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 122. 307 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 119, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 78. 308