aggression that could have been interpreted as a threat to the State or engaged in violent acts that could pose a risk to life and therefore would warrant the use of lethal armed force as a last and necessary resort in that situation. In that regard, the Inter-American Commission calls to mind that the only legitimate use of firearms in cases of flight risk is when the life of a person is in jeopardy, a situation that does not arise in this case as there is no evidence that would point to the existence or indications of risk to the lives of the policemen who were manning the checkpoints. 54. The statements of the police officers themselves indicate that at both checkpoints the authorities signaled the vehicle to stop. At the first, the policemen stated, the signal to stop was made by waving a traffic baton and asking that the patrol car lights be turned on; at the second, they stated that they had signaled the vehicle to stop and that subsequently three police officers said they had fired into the air (Francisco Simón Ordoñez Nájera, Ricardo Javier Salgado Ojeda, and Silvio Antonio Vanegas Blandon) and one officer, José Marcelino Ramírez Vargas, said he had fired three to four times without authorization in the direction of the tires on the right side of the vehicle. 55. Even though the police officers stated that all the shots were fired into the air or at the vehicle’s tires, the visual inspection report in the case file shows that no shots hit the tires or the motor to stop the vehicle, but rather that the gunshots were directed at the upper part of the vehicle, hitting individuals inside the van, as was effectively proved with the death of one of the alleged victims and the grievous bodily harm to the other and to another group of people. 56. In any case, even accepting the police officers’ account regarding the use of less lethal means to stop the vehicle, based on the standards cited earlier the use of firearms should have been avoided at all cost by taking other types of preventive action, especially considering that there is a constant flow of illegal merchandise and human trafficking in that area. This is even more evident considering, as mentioned earlier, that there is no evidence suggesting that the alleged victims and those who were inside the van represented any type of threat to the lives of the police officers or of others. 57. The Commission reiterates that the use of lethal weapons at police or immigration checkpoints will always prove to be arbitrary and contrary to the principles of legality, absolute necessity, and proportionality when a vehicle tries to flee, unless there is aggression involved or indications that someone’s life is in danger. In this case, the use of legitimate force was not substantiated, and the grave consequence was the death of Mr. Pedro Roche Azaña and the serious condition of Patricio Roche Azaña. The unnecessary and disproportionate use of force can be attributed to the Nicaraguan State owing to the actions of law enforcement officials.62 This conclusion is sufficient to establish the State’s international responsibility for that use of force. 58. Moreover, in terms of the details of the harm to the two brothers’ physical integrity, the petitioning party referred to “the now-deceased Pedro Bacilio Roche Azaña, who in a desperate state remained in agony until midnight (approximately) of that same day, when he died as a result of the fatal wound reportedly caused by the bullet hitting his skull.” 63 In addition, with respect to Patricio Fernando Roche Azaña, the petitioner indicated that he received a gunshot wound and was without medical attention until the following morning; as a result, he remained in a coma for approximately two weeks and later had to stay in the hospital for another three months. Patricio Roche was operated on three times in Nicaragua and two more times in Ecuador, and “has been left with permanent injuries that have made him unable to carry out any economic activity that would allow him to live well and normally; and on top of this ongoing and desperate pain there is the bitter loneliness and anguish at having lost Pedro Bacilio Roche Azaña, a member of his family.”64 59. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that Nicaragua is responsible for violating the rights to life and humane treatment established in Articles 4.1 and 5.1 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Pedro Bacilio Roche Azaña. The Commission also concludes that the Nicaraguan State is responsible for violating the right to 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. 91. 63 Initial petition, Patricio Roche Azaña, December 23, 1998. 64 Initial petition, Patricio Roche Azaña, December 23, 1998. 62