delicto. Indeed, article 248 of the Organic Criminal Procedural Code in force at the time of the events refers to the situation of flagrante delicto identified by the Commission, and includes surprising the suspect or suspects in the execution of the unlawful act or shortly after, although it also includes other situations such as those in which “the suspect is pursued by the police authority, by the victim or by the public, or in which he is surprised shortly after having committed the offense, in the place or near the place where it was committed, with weapons, instruments or other objects that, in some way justifiably suggest that he was the perpetrator.” In the region’s comparative criminal procedural law, in flagrante delicto is also defined in the understanding that this offense is not limited exclusively to the person surprised or identified during the perpetration of the offense, which the Commission appears to consider is the only admissible hypothesis for including a situation within this offense. 73. The Court also recalls that the analysis of the use of force necessarily involves determining whether this sought a legitimate purpose. In this regard, it should be reiterated that the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement indicate clearly that law enforcement officials shall not use their firearms against anyone, unless: (a) in self-defense or defense of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury; (b) to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life; (c) to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, and (d) to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objective.84 74. In the instant case, the State’s version of the facts refers to a situation in which the police officers used their firearms in a confrontation that had supposedly been initiated by the alleged victims (supra para. 41). Accordingly, in this hypothesis, the purpose of the use of force was self-defense. Therefore, here, it is irrelevant to determine whether the action of the police took place under the hypothesis of in flagrante delicto to arrest the perpetrator of an offense who, at that time, did not represent grave threat to life. The only relevant matter is to determine whether this use of force occurred in the course of a confrontation and, if applicable, whether it respected the principles of necessity and strict proportionality. Consequently, in this case, the legitimacy of the use of force by the police officers corresponds to an analysis unrelated to the one concerning the legitimacy of proceeding to arrest or detain the alleged victims. i. The factual elements of the events that led to the deaths of Robert Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez 75. With regard to the initial occasion on which the police officers resorted to the use of force, culminating in Robert Díaz Loreto being shot three times, the different statements reveal that this occurred between 6 and 6.30 p.m. Even though the witness statements provided in the domestic sphere do not indicate the exact time, several police officers, 85 J.L.B.M., a neighbor,86 T.A.V., a taxi driver who was present, 87 the mother of Robert and David Díaz Loreto and wife of Octavio Díaz,88 Jairo Alexis Diaz Loreto, Robert’s brother,89 84 Cf. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, Principle 9. Cf. Indictment of the Ninth Prosecutor of the Judicial Circumscription of Aragua state of June 13, 2003 (evidence file, folios 10 and ff.). 85 Cf. Indictment of the Ninth Prosecutor of the Judicial Circumscription of Aragua state of June 13, 2003 (evidence file, folio 23). 86 Cf. Indictment of the Ninth Prosecutor of the Judicial Circumscription of Aragua state of June 13, 2003 (evidence file, folio 66). 87 Cf. Indictment of the Ninth Prosecutor of the Judicial Circumscription of Aragua state of June 13, 2003 (evidence file, folios 10 and ff.). 88 Cf. Indictment of the Ninth Prosecutor of the Judicial Circumscription of Aragua state of June 13, 2003 (evidence file, folio 24). 89 -24-