deaths of the three members of the Díaz family could be situated within the general problem of abuse by police authorities and extrajudicial executions.20 II. THE JUDGMENT'S CONCLUSIONS ON THE DEATHS OF THE THREE VICTIMS IN THIS CASE 17. Regarding the facts of this case, in relation to the deaths of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto and Octavio Díaz Álvarez, the Inter-American Court concluded that the State was responsible for violating the right to life contained in Article 4 of the American Convention.21 The IACtHR indicated, as it had in other cases, that “in any case of the use of force by State agents that results in the death of, or injuries to, one or more persons, the State has the obligation to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of what happened and to disprove the arguments concerning its responsibility with appropriate evidence.”22 And, precisely in this case, it verified that the State had not provided a satisfactory explanation, “given the contradictions that have not been clarified and the deficiencies in the forensic appraisals mentioned above.”23 18. Regarding the facts of the case, the Inter-American Court noted that there were two versions. On the one hand, the version supported by the Inter-American Commission and the victims’ representatives according to which these three individuals were extrajudicially executed; on the other hand, the version defended by the State according to which the three individuals died in the course of two “confrontations” with the State’s law enforcement agents.24 The IACtHR analyzed the evidence related to the events of the case and verified that a series of contradictions and inconsistencies existed in the version of the facts concerning the existence of such confrontations.25 19. Regarding the contradictions and inconsistencies in the version of the supposed “confrontation,” the IACtHR indicated that: a) The testimony of several family members and neighbors contradicts the version of the confrontation; b) No shells were collected from one of the firearms that had allegedly been used by the three victims in the confrontation; c) There are inconsistencies regarding how long the police patrol car took to reach the Corinsa Social Security facility so that Robert Díaz Loreto could receive attention; Cf. Statement by Sara del Carmen Mier y Terán Ojera during the public hearing in this case. It should also be underlined that, during the same public hearing, expert witness Lisandro Raúl Cubas stated that, in Venezuela, extrajudicial executions “are related to a cultural problem of the violence used by the police forces; their lack of professional training is evident, also the issue of impunity […] and the lack of control of police officers.” Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, para. 32. 20 Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, para. 89. 21 Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, para. 88. 22 Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, para. 88. 23 Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, para. 80. 24 Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, para. 87. 25 5