199. These are clearly relevant elements in the analysis as to whether responsibility is attributable to the State. Added to these elements is that the testimony of Alciviades Valdiviezo concerning the moment at which Mr. Valencia Hinojosa died conflicts with the accounts given by the policemen Cabezas and Piedra and by General Milton Ramírez,171 since the former said that a policeman “wearing a white shirt” entered the security guard's quarters, two shots were then heard, and then it was announced that Mr. Valencia Hinojosa was dead. For his part, Franklin Garcia said in his testimony that "after the shooting” the policemen went into the room, forcing the lock, while Ana Teresa Espinoza said that after verifying that Mr. Valencia was dead, the policemen Cabezas and Piedra “shook hands” and that one of them even wanted to continue firing into the air. 200. The Commission finds that the witness testimonies on their own do not show that Mr. Valencia Hinojosa was extrajudicially executed by agents of the State. However, it has been proven that the State did not carry out a diligent investigation by which to screen all the circumstantial evidence described and get at the truth by conducting essential evidential procedures, such as determining the number of shots fired from the weapons of the policemen Cabezas and Piedra. 201. For the purposes of the State's international responsibility for violation of the right to life, the Commission concludes that, analyzed as a whole, the available elements of proof with respect to the lack of planning and control of the operation as well as the intentional use of force made during same, are evidence that allow it to infer, given the lack of a diligent investigation, the accuracy of the statement by Alciviades Valdiviezo and, consequently, the hypothesis that the fatal outcome of the operation may have come about as a result of a shot discharged by one of the police officers who entered the place where Mr. Valencia was located. The Commission also reiterates that the deliberate use of lethal force to "intimidate" Mr. Valencia and the absence of other means of containment, may have caused such growing apprehension and dread as to have been pivotal, in the suicide hypothesis, in the decision to end his life, which he himself announced during the operation, without the police officers adopting any measures in that respect. 202. Despite the fact that the Commission is unable to reach a definitive finding on the homicide or suicide hypothesis, it considers, based on the lack of a diligent and effective investigation of the facts and the evidence put forward, that the State failed in its obligations with regards to Mr. Valencia Hinojosa's right to life. In this regard, as the Inter-American Court has done on other occasions, 172 reaching another conclusion, would mean allowing the State to shield itself behind the negligence, ineffectiveness, and partiality of the investigation, in order to tolerate a lack of disclosure of the truth and succeed in evading its international responsibility. 203. Consequently, the Commission finds that the State is responsible for violation of the right to life recognized at Article 4(1) of the American Convention taken in conjunction with the obligation to respect and ensure rights established in Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Luis Jorge Valencia Hinojosa; B. Right to humane treatment 204. Article 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights provides, “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected." The Inter-American Court has indicated that the next-of-kin of victims of certain human rights violations may, in turn, become victims. 173 Specifically, 171 dead. According to which, the place was entered only after no more shots were heard, upon which Mr. Valencia was found already 172 Cfr. I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas-Fernández v.Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, par. 9; I/A Court H.R.,Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, par. 356. 173I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, par. 112; I/A Court H.R., Case of Bueno-Alves. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, par. 102.