38 According to the forensic evidence, it was this second shot that caused the death of Igmar Alexander, who ultimately died from “severe cerebral contusion” and a “faciocranial injury” from a firearm. The Commission notes that the first instance judge, when convicting one officer and acquitting the other, emphasized that the firearm injury that was punishable was precisely the second one, the one that caused the death of Igmar Alexander. 196. The Commission notes that whether or not Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías was armed is subject to dispute. According to the version of the Aragua State CSOP officers, the young man was armed and used his weapon. There is also a gunpowder trace test of the hands of Igmar Alexander that yielded positive results. Nonetheless, there is testimony indicating that the young man was not armed. In addition, within the framework of the context described supra, the modus operandi of the regional police who carry out extrajudicial executions includes simulating a confrontation by various means such as placing a weapon in the hands of the corpse and shooting that weapon. The Commission does not have additional evidence to resolve the dispute as to whether Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías was armed and/or shot a weapon. 197. The Commission notes that over and above this dispute, what is relevant is to determine whether the use of force was justified under the particular circumstances of the case, in the light of the standards of necessity and proportionality described. The Commission feels that even if the young man was armed and shot at the police officers, the State did not justify the second short that caused his death. On this point, the Commission notes that the investigation conducted and the assessment made by the first instance court provided important evidence regarding the absence of a need for and the disproportionality of the second shot. This is consistent with the statements made by most of the eye witnesses. In effect, all the eye witnesses called, with the exception of the police officers and an acquaintance of another CSOP officer, agreed that Igmar Alexander was wounded on the ground and begged the officers not to kill him. 198. Bearing in mind the burden of proof rules in cases where force is used, the Commission believes that the State failed to satisfactorily justify the use of force in the domestic investigation and criminal proceeding or in the inter-American process, at least with respect to the second shot to the face of Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías, according to the principles of necessity and proportionality. 199. The Commission also emphasizes the narrative of Mrs. Mejías and Mr. Landaeta Muñoz regarding the existence of prior threats against the two brothers, precisely in the days before the death of Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías, and the lack of investigation regarding these threats, even though they were made by officers of the same police corps that killed the victim. In this context of police threats against both brothers, after Igmar Alexander died, Eduardo José was killed one and a half months later, while in the custody of the same police corps. 200. Besides the above, the Commission also notes the obvious illegality of the actions taken by the officers who participated in these events. This illegality is based in part on their failure to identify themselves at the time of the events. As indicated by the proven facts, the officers were in civilian dress and an in automobile not identified as belonging to the police. Nonetheless, they stated on various occasions that they were acting in “intelligence functions.” In addition, the illegality is based on the attitude of those officers once the death occurred. The Commission has recognized as proven that the police officers transported the lifeless body to the medical center without identifying themselves there as police officers and without providing any explanation of what had happened. These actions are clearly incompatible with any regulations or procedure governing the actions of police officers. 201. This conduct was not investigated or punished in disciplinary terms. For the Commission, this type of conduct by police officers, in addition to tolerance of that conduct by the authorities competent to investigate and punish it, generates serious doubts regarding the legitimate use of force on the one hand and, on the other hand, constitutes additional evidence regarding the arbitrariness of the use of force in this case. These questions are also consistent with the context described supra.