21. Notwithstanding the above, the Court calls to mind that maintaining domestic public order and citizen security should be primarily reserved to civilian police bodies. However, the participation of the armed forces in duties of law enforcement must be extraordinary or exceptional, given that their presence and intervention in such duties may entail a risk to human rights. 15 In this regard, the Court notes that the State has the obligation to ensure that its armed forces, which are entitled to use legitimate force, respect the human rights of those who are under its jurisdiction, in conformity with the standards established by this Court. 16 This entails the restrictive use of lethal weapons and the proportional use of force when necessary. 17 22. The Court appreciates the State’s willingness to provide comprehensive reparation for the damages caused to the victims due to the violations in this case and to prevent their repetition. Regarding the reparation measures described in the Agreement subscribed by the State, the victims and their representatives, the Court will analyze them in order to determine whether to sanction the Agreement and, if applicable, its scope and enforcement (infra Chapter VII). V. FACTS 23. The Agreement establishes that “the parties agree that the facts that constitute the basis of this [agreement] and the acknowledgment of responsibility of the [State] are the proven facts determined by [the Commission] in its [Report on Merits N° 47/16] approved on November 29, 2016.” 18 Based on the foregoing, the Court will refer briefly to the facts that constitute the violations in this case, described in Chapter IV “Proven Facts” of the Report on Merits. A. Situation of the municipality of Baborigame at the time of the facts 24. The State acknowledged the increased presence of the army in the municipality of Baborigame and explained that in the 1990s a military command post was established in response to the violence from drug trafficking. The State expressed that at the time of the facts of the case, the base was commanded by Infantry Lieutenant Colonel Luis Raúl Morales Rodríguez. Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, paras. 86 and 87. 15 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 66, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 80. 16 17 Cf. Basic principles on the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials, Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September, 1990, Principle No. 2, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 80. Friendly settlement agreement and acknowledgment of responsibility of the State of Mexico in case N° 12,659 Mirey Trueba Arciniega et al. of August 28, 2018, p. 4. 18 8