could have resulted from a legitimate use of lethal force, which its actions had also failed to demonstrate. On the contrary, the State acknowledged the fact that the officer had fired the shot, and that the subsequent investigation culminated in his conviction. Therefore, the death of Joffre Aroca “constituted an extrajudicial execution.” The Commission concluded that Ecuador was responsible for the violation of Article 4(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Aroca Palma. 71. The representative observed that the State’s responsibility had been fully demonstrated, as confirmed by Article 2 of the Law for the Reparation of Victims, which establishes that the State “recognizes that the victims suffered unjustifiable violations of their life, liberty, integrity and dignity.” 57 72. The State argued that, as the Truth Commission had stated in its final report, at the time of the events Ecuador had a legal order that protected the lives of all persons, established in Article 23 of the Political Constitution of 1998 and in the Penal Code, which were in effect at that time and punished “any act that impairs and violates the right to life.” It pointed out that the Constitution promulgated in 2008 and the Organic Criminal Code, in effect since 2014, also recognize the inviolability of the right to life. It added that the criminal code included the crime of extrajudicial execution, a development that various international bodies had viewed positively. It reported that implementation of human rights training programs for police officers was ongoing, demonstrating the efforts undertaken in this area. 73. It alleged that Mr. Aroca Palma’s death was investigated in a timely manner, to the point where the State agent responsible for the crime had been convicted and sentenced. In addition, since December 2010 the Public Prosecution Service had continued to make efforts to capture the former police officer convicted of killing the alleged victim. The Ministry of the Interior had also implemented actions to locate and capture the fugitive. All of this “demonstrate[s] that the Ecuadorian State guarantees the right to the inviolability of life, the prohibition of extrajudicial executions, and the reasonable prevention of acts that could potentially affect” the right in question. A.3. Right to personal integrity 74. The Commission argued that Mr. Aroca Palma had been detained unlawfully and arbitrarily, with no explanation of the reasons why he had been detained. He was forced into a police vehicle where his face was covered with a T-shirt, and then taken to a place close to a stadium where the police officers made him get out of the car and, after walking for a couple of minutes, “he was shot dead.” The Commission contended that it was “reasonable to conclude” that these events “had created great anxiety and fear” in the alleged victim about what his fate would be. Therefore, the State had violated his right to personal integrity. 75. The representative pointed out that the State’s responsibility had been fully demonstrated, as confirmed by Article 2 of the Law for the Reparation of Victims, which establishes that the State “recognizes that the victims suffered unjustifiable violations of their life, liberty, integrity and dignity.” 58 76. The State maintained that the 1998 Constitution “specifically recognized and guaranteed” the right to personal integrity, inasmuch as it prohibited “all cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment that could lead to physical, psychological or sexual violence or moral coercion.” This recognition “was improved considerably in the 2008 Constitution,” and 57 58 Argument put forward in the final written arguments. Argument put forward in the final written arguments. 16