24 1. Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 65. Regarding the State' argument on the burden of proof, this Court has said that "in proceedings on violations of human rights, the defense of the State can not lean on the plaintiff impossibility to gather evidence that, in many cases, can not be obtained without the cooperation of the State" 34 and, in particular has stated "the State has the control of the means to clarify the facts that took place in its territory". 35 In that sense, the Court considers that in this case, it is not the InterAmerican Commission' responsibility to prove the whereabouts of Durand Ugarte and Ugarte Rivera, because penitentiaries and investigations were under the exclusive control of the State. As a consequence, the burden of proof falls upon the State. 66. According to the proven facts, Durand Ugarte and Ugarte Rivera were detained by charges of terrorism in the Blue Pavilion at El Frontón penitentiary center, on June 18, 1986 (supra para. 59. f.). 67. To investigate the facts related to the uprisings subduing, the Congress of the Republic of Peru designated an Investigating Commission to carry out the task and that submitted two reports one by majority, another by minority. In the conclusion of the report by majority, in paragraph 14, it is stated that "based on the results it is concluded; however, that there was a disproportionate use of weapons. Final demolition after surrendering occurred at 14:30 on the 19th , would not have any logic explanation and consequently would have been unjustified". Similarly, the report by minority stated in the section related to some previous details, that 4. [i]t is proven that the government when not fulfilling its obligation to protect human life, gave orders which brought about the consequences of an unjustified toll. a. the decision to subdue the riots through military force, in the most decisive and peremptory period, meant to seriously and unnecessarily risk the life of hostages and inmates [and] b. [m]ilitary force used was disproportionate in relation to the existing danger and the different implemented ways to attack did not reveal any precaution to reduce the human costs of the crushing. 68. Based on the above and in compliance with Court witness and expert statements, it has been proven that the Blue Pavilion was demolished by the Peruvian Navy forces. They resorted to a disproportionate use of force in relation to the supposedly danger that riot represented (supra para. 59. j), said situation caused the deaths of many of the detainees by crushing, according to the corresponding autopsies. Likewise, it was possible to determine as stated in the Congress report by minority that there was no interest by the corresponding authorities to rescue . the detainees who were alive after the demolition. Besides, there was a lack of arrangements to identify the corpses taking into consideration that only a few of them were identified in the following days after the conflict was concluded, and the corpses recovering process lasted around nine months. 34 cf. Neira Alegría et al Case, supra note 12 para. 65; Gangaram Panday Case, supra note, 10 para. 49; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 9, para.141; and Velázquez Rodríguez Case, supra note, 9 para.135. 35 cf. Neira Alegría et al Case, supra note 12, para. 65; Godínez Cruz, supra note 9, para. 142; and Velázquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 9. para. 136.