33 that signs such as powder burns [signo de Benassi] used to determine the proximity of the firearm 165 when it was shot […] are not found […] 148. The Commission observes that, as established by the proven facts, the Armed Forces obstructed the timely performance of the initial procedures following the deaths of the MRTA members. This had an impact on subsequent investigations since even though more complete expert examinations were performed four years after the fact, a complete analysis was impossible due to the time that had elapsed and the shortcomings in the first autopsies. 149. In this regard, the State has provided no evidence, aside from the report on the removal of the bodies, to indicate that Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez was carrying a weapon at the time of his death and had tried to use it, for which reason he would have been shot. The State has also failed to explain why Mr. Cruz Sánchez received a single coup de grâce to the neck. 150. The IACHR also observes, as it will discuss in the chapter on due process guarantees and judicial protection, that in response to the lethal use of force by state agents, the State did not preserve evidentiary material or open an ex officio investigation into the murder of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, and the investigation opened years later in the civilian court has charged only the masterminds, and not a single direct perpetrator. The State also did not submit information as to whether it has examined whether the use of force adhered to the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality. In relation to Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza and Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva 151. The Commission observes that in his statement, former hostage Hidetaka Ogura asserts that as he was being evacuated from the Ambassador’s residence, he saw how two MRTA members, a short man and a woman known as “Cynthia” were surrounded by commandos; he later heard the woman yell not to kill them. For their part, the soldiers responsible for controlling what was known as “Room 1,” from whence Mr. Ogura was evacuated, stated that Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza and Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva appeared from the hallway, armed, the former with a machine gun and the latter with a grenade. The next day, these two individuals appeared half a meter apart with multiple gunshot wounds to vital parts of their bodies. 152. The IACHR observes that the versions offered by the soldiers to the Public Prosecutor’s Office contain discrepancies as to the individual who allegedly shot Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza and Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva. According to the record of the opening of proceedings [auto de aperture] in June 2002, Colonel Huaracaya Lovón, the officer in charge of the commando for Room I, stated that commandos Paz Ramos and Alvarado Díaz were the ones who shot at the aforementioned MRTA members; conversely, commando Paz Ramos denied having fired at them and soldier Becerra Noblecilla 166 said that soldiers Huaracaya Lovón, Alvarado Díaz and he himself were the ones who had fired. In addition, Colonel Huaracaya Lovón indicated that the man was carrying a machine gun and “he could not tell whether the female terrorist was carrying a weapon.” At the same time, soldier Manuel Antonio Paz Ramos stated that the woman was carrying a war grenade and intended to detonate it, “which caused him to react quickly and fire off several shots, although he could not tell whether or not he had hit the male subversive since his main concern was the woman.” José Luis Alvarado Díaz asserted that he and Paz fired at the man carrying a machine gun. 153. It is also important to note that according to the aforementioned statements, the areas adjacent to Room I were under military control. In this sense, the Public Prosecutor’s Office stressed that although the statements of the members of Team 8 indicated that Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza and Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva were armed, “this does not explain, however, how the wronged parties were 165 Appendix 9, Ruling of the Review Chamber of the Supreme Council of Military Justice of April 5, 2004, appendix 3 to the State’s communication of February 6, 2009. 166 Inquiry of the Public Ministry of September 22, 2006, file provided by the State.