that no person can be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life but also requires that the States adopt any and all necessary measures to protect and preserve the right to life, based on their obligation to guarantee the full and free exercise of the rights of all individuals under their jurisdiction.57 48. In keeping with the foregoing, the Commission has established that “extrajudicial or summary executions [involve] the deliberate, illegitimate deprivation of life on the part of State agents, usually acting on orders or at least with the consent and acceptance of the authorities. Therefore, extrajudicial executions are illegal acts committed by precisely those persons who have been invested with the power originally conceived to protect and guarantee [people’s security and lives].”58 49. Moreover, the Commission calls to mind that in the inter-American system, cases involving extrajudicial executions, depending on their characteristics, can reveal violations of other human rights, such as the right to humane treatment. In these terms, the Inter-American Court has determined that “it is reasonable to assume that, during the moments before they were deprived of their life, [those executed] suffered profound fear in the face of the real and imminent danger that events would culminate in their death, as effectively occurred,”59 a situation that involves a violation of the right to humane treatment established in Article 5 of the American Convention. 50. In Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, the Court elaborated on the use of force and humane treatment and established that “if anyone is injured owing to the use of force, assistance and medical aid should be ensured and rendered, and relatives or close friends should be notified at the earliest possible moment.”60 3. Determination of legitimacy of the deprivation of life of Pedro Roche Azaña and the bodily harm of Patricio Roche Azaña through use of lethal force, and analysis of the “satisfactory explanation” standard of the State 51. There is no dispute over the fact that Pedro Roche Azaña died and Patricio Roche Azaña was a victim of grievous bodily harm because of the use of lethal force by the State. The dispute revolves around whether, as the State maintains, the death and the impacts to physical integrity were the result of legitimate acts by police officers who were forced to fire when the van began to flee or whether, as the petitioner states, this was an illegitimate use of force. Based on the standards described above, it is incumbent upon the Commission to examine whether the State has satisfactorily explained that the death of Pedro Roche Azaña resulted from a legitimate use of lethal force. 52. At the time of the events in question, Nicaragua’s Organic Law of the National Police was not yet in force; it was published on August 28, 1996. However, Executive Decree 45-92 of 1992, which defined the functions and organization of the National Police, established that the police would employ weapons only in situations in which there was a reasonably serious risk to their life or physical integrity or that of others, or when a serious risk to public order was involved. Despite this provision, the State has not demonstrated that at the time of the events in question there were clear regulations in place with a prevention policy on use of force, in keeping with its international obligations in this area. Moreover, there is no information in the case file on whether there were protocols for oversight or control of operations to ensure a valid use of force. 53. The State argued that “the police authorities were forced to fire on the vehicle in order to halt its escape; even so, it continued on until it reached a sparsely populated area.” 61 However, there are no indications in the case file that the migrants or the driver were armed or that they carried out some act of IACHR. Case 12.270, Report No. 2/15, Merits, Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández, Venezuela, January 29, 2015, para. 186; I/A Court H.R. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 80. 58 IACHR. Report No. 25/02, Case 11.763, Plan de Sánchez Massacre, Guatemala, February 28, 2002, para. 114. 59 I/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, para. 99. 60 I/A Court H.R. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 100. 61 Communication from the State received on July 5, 2007. 57