IV. ANALYSIS OF LAW A. Right to life45 (Article 4.1) and right to humane treatment46 (Article 5.1), in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention, with respect to Pedro Bacilio and Patricio Fernando Roche Azaña 1. General considerations and burden of proof (“satisfactory explanation”) in cases involving the use of force and firearms by State agents 39. Both the Inter-American Commission and Court have held that the use of force must be examined in all cases in which force has been deployed and in which State agents have killed or injured anyone.47 In that connection, the Commission will examine the facts of the case taking into account what interAmerican case law has stated regarding the right to life, in connection with the obligations to respect and guarantee rights and in the matter of use of force. In so doing, the IACHR will consider various relevant international instruments and specifically the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials and the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (hereinafter “Principles on the Use of Force” and “Code of Conduct,” respectively). 40. When allegations are made that a death was the result of the use of force, both the IACHR and the Inter-American Court have established clear rules on the burden of proof. The Inter-American Court has indicated that “…whenever the use of force [by state agents] results in the death or injuries to one or more individuals, the State has the obligation to give a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events and to rebut allegations over its liability, through appropriate evidentiary elements.”48 41. Similarly, the UN Human Rights Committee has held that in cases where further clarification of the facts depends on information exclusively in the hands of the State, allegations may be considered substantiated in the absence of satisfactory evidence or explanation to refute the claims of the complainants.49 This is in line with the holding of the European Court to the effect that in cases of death as a consequence of the use of lethal force, the strictest test must be used to determine whether the use of force is of compelling necessity.50 42. As such, for an explanation of the use of deadly force to be deemed satisfactory, it must be the product of an investigation that is compatible with guarantees of independence, impartiality, and due diligence and, additionally, must meet certain requirements under inter-American legal precedent in order to justify the use of force. These are: i. Legitimate purpose: the use of force must be aimed at achieving a legitimate purpose…. Article 4 of the American Convention establishes the following, in the pertinent section: 1. Every person has the right to have his life respected... No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life…. 46 Article 4 of the American Convention establishes the following, in the pertinent section: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 47 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. 123; IACHR. Case 11.442, Report No. 90/14, Merits, Luis Jorge Valencia Hinojosa, Ecuador, November 4, 2014, para. 123. 48 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. 108; Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 17, 2015. Series C No. 292, para. 291; and 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. 132. 49 UN. Human Rights Committee. Case of Irene Bleier Lewenhoff and Rosa Valiño de Bleier v. Uruguay. Communication No. 30/1978, UN Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, of March 29, 1982, para. 13.3; Case of Albert Womah Mukong v. Cameroon. Communication No. 458/1991, UN Doc. CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991, of July 21, 1994, para. 9.2; and Case of Turdukan Zhumbaeva v. Kyrgyzstan. Communication Nº 1756/2008, UN Doc. CCPR/C/102/D/1756/2008, of July 29, 2011, para. 8.7. 50 ECHR, Case of McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom. Application No. 27229/95, September 27, 1995, § 149. 45