elements of the said context were present in the facts of this case,51 and referred to the fact that Robert Díaz Loreto had been “hunting iguanas” to explain the presence of “sewage” in his respiratory tract and digestive system. In this regard, the judgment indicates that this “does not explain the specific findings of the autopsy or how he could have ingested and breathed in that inorganic material”;52 which reinforces the hypothesis of the family members and the victims’ representatives, and also of the Inter-American Commission, that Robert Díaz Loreto was not taken directly to the Corinsa Social Security Clinic in Cagua, a matter that is also corroborated by the delay in the transfer of the victim to the medical center. Thus, as stated in the judgment, given the inconsistencies in the State’s version, “these findings could indicate that he was subjected to physical abuse that would constitute ill-treatment or torture.”53 35. Besides this, the State did not provide any explanation on the reasons why the police patrol had taken so long to reach the health center with Robert Díaz Loreto;54 nor did it explain why it had not conducted investigation measures that would have been definitive to elucidate the truth of what happened. Moreover, it failed to offer any explanation that allowed it to be understood why the context of extrajudicial executions that existed in Venezuela and in Aragua state was not taken into account when investigating the facts of this case.55 36. On this last point, the IACtHR recalled its consistent case law according to which it is for the domestic authorities to clarify the facts and determine individual responsibilities. In any case involving the use of force by State agents that results in the death or injury of 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, and this has not occurred in the instant case, given the contradictions that have not been clarified and the aforementioned deficiencies in the forensic appraisals.56 37. We understand that the coexistence of contradictory versions of what happened in this case is only substantiated owing the negligence of the authorities when conducting certain elementary forensic tests. In this regard, and as indicated in the judgment, it is not reasonable to consider that this negligence constitutes evidence that is contrary to the rights of the victims in this case. In particular, if it is considered that the decision to obtain that evidence did not depend on them, but rather on the domestic authorities.57 38. In this regard, it is legitimate to wonder about the type of evidence required, and the way in which the extrajudicial execution of the three victims in this case could have been proved; especially when it is considered that the victims’ representatives could not, reasonably, have had other evidence than that produced in this contentious case. To the contrary, this would signify requiring evidence that it was impossible to produce to prove Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, para. 55. 51 Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, para. 82. 52 Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, para. 82. 53 Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, para. 81. 54 Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, para. 110. 55 Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, para. 88. 56 Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, para. 86. 57 10