ii. Absolute necessity: it is necessary to verify whether other less harmful means exist to safeguard the life and integrity of the person or situation that is sought to protect, according to the circumstances of the case…. iii. Proportionality: the level of force used must be in accordance with the level of resistance offered, which implies striking a balance between the situation that the agent is facing and his response, considering the potential harm that could be caused.51 43. Along the same lines, the Commission notes that the Principles on the Use of Force provide for the use of firearms “to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority.”52 Nevertheless, as part of the requirements to authorize the use of force in that hypothetical situation, the Principles establish that: i) it may be used only when other, less extreme means are insufficient to achieve this purpose; ii) it should be used only “when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life”; iii) officers must “give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms”; and iv) this warning must be given with sufficient time for the warning to be observed, except when such a warning would unduly place the officer at risk or create a risk of death or serious harm to other persons. 44. It follows from this that legitimate purpose, absolute necessity, and proportionality of the use of lethal force must be substantiated by the State in light of the particular circumstances of the specific case involved. Additionally, as a consequence of these principles, the Commission recalls that State agents who intervene in such operations must apply the criteria of “differentiated and progressive use of force, determining the degree of cooperation, resistance or violence of the subject against whom the intervention is intended and, on this basis, employ negotiating tactics, control or use of force, as required.”53 45. Regarding the use of force in migration-related operations, the Court has held the following, in the Nadege Dorzema case, on the need to implement less harmful means: …in this case, less harmful means could have been used for the traffic control sought and to avoid a violent pursuit; for example, by setting up traffic controls, with barricades, speed bumps, tire puncturing devices, and/or cameras that permit the non-violent recording and identification of those involved and an improved control of the flow of traffic in the area. Mainly, measures that are in keeping with the daily transit of migrants in the area.54 46. In the same case, the Court specified that the migrants did not represent a real danger or threat, and consequently, the use of lethal force was not absolutely necessary; and that the State could have established less extreme means to achieve the same end, and therefore there was no proportionality.55 2. General standards on the right to life, the right to humane treatment, and the right to personal liberty in cases related to alleged illegitimate use of lethal force 47. The Commission calls to mind that the right to life is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights and that without the respect for this right, all other rights are meaningless.56. Compliance with Article 4 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 thereof, does not only presuppose I/A Court H.R. Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 134. 52 Principles 9 and 10 of the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Havana (Cuba), August 27 to September 7, 1990. 53 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. 85. 54 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. 88. 55 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, paras. 85-91. 56 IACHR. Case 12.270, Report No. 2/15, Merits, Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández, Venezuela, January 29, 2015, para. 185. 51