37 the role of the international court is to establish whether the proceedings as a whole were in 175 accordance with international provisions. 170. Whenever state agents have, under any circumstance, caused the death of a person, the State has the obligation to investigate and to give a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events 176 and to rebut allegations over its liability based on appropriate evidentiary elements. Similarly, it is important to bear in mind that … the European Court of Human Rights held that investigations on the excessive use of force must be subject to public scrutiny to secure accountability of government officers in theory as well as in practice. Furthermore, said Court has stated that the assessment on the use of force which involved use of firearms must be made taking into account all the circumstances and factual 177 backdrop, including the planification and control of the facts under scrutiny. 171. The Commission will now examine the due diligence on the part of the State in the proceeding initiated at the domestic level in relation to the deaths of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza and Herma Meléndez Cuevas, in order to determine whether it was carried out with respect for due process guarantees and has provided an effective remedy to ensure the rights to a fair trial, the truth about the events, and reparation to their next of kin. 172. It has been proven that three years after the events occurred, the relatives of the MRTA members who died in Operation Chavín de Huántar lodged a criminal complaint before the Public Ministry for the alleged extrajudicial execution of the fourteen MRTA members. As a result, in January 2001, the Public Prosecutor’s Office ordered a review of the autopsies performed the day after the events. Finding it impossible to obtain additional information about the form and circumstances of their deaths due to the shortcomings in those autopsies, the Public Prosecutor’s Office ordered the exhumation of the bodies and a new analysis performed by the Peruvian Institute of Forensic Anthropology. It also designated two experts to prepare a report. In August of that year, former hostage Hidetaka sent a letter from Japan describing what he had seen on the day the events occurred. 173. On May 24, 2002, the Public Prosecutor’s Office decided to bring charges against the alleged masterminds of the events and against fifteen military men alleged to be the direct perpetrators, for the deaths of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza and Herma Meléndez Cuevas. At that stage of the proceeding, the Public Prosecutor’s Office determined that “for the moment” it would not pursue the case involving the other MRTA members who had died for lack of evidentiary elements. Several days later, on May 29, 2002, the military justice system opened an investigation of all of the military personnel involved in the Operation, in relation to the deaths of Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza, Herma Meléndez Cuevas, and two other MRTA members: Roli Rojas Fernández and Luz Dina Villoslada Rodríguez. The Office of the Supreme War Council filed a jurisdictional challenge before the Supreme Court of Justice which, in August 2002, ruled in favor of the military jurisdiction with respect to the members of the armed forces who had been part of the commando and determined that the civilian courts would take up the facts in relation to persons “other” than the commando. In October 2003, the 175 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 142, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 133; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 200; and Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 120. 176 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R.. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para 108; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 80; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 273, and Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 120. In a similar sense, see also Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 111. 177 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R.. Case of Montero Aranguren et al (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, paras. 82 and 83; ECHR, Case of Makaratzis v. Greece. Judgment of 20 December 2004. Application No. 50385/99, para. 59.