deciding to proceed to the use force” and it should have considered other ways of stopping the vehicle. The action of the armed forces was “grossly negligent,” and revealed “despotism and abuse of power” by State agents in a climate of “xenophobia and racism at the institutional level,” which infiltrated the general context of the events that occurred. In addition, “the murder of [two people in State custody], underlines the categorization of this case as a massacre.” 73. Regarding the violation of personal integrity, the representatives argued that “following the pursuit, the actions of the State agents also violated the right to moral integrity of the survivors identified in the case.” In addition, they specified that “the victims had to obey the orders that the soldiers gave at gunpoint (which was very eloquent), accepting to carry the bodies of the dead and seriously injured to the ambulances. This type of conduct responds to the concept of abuse of authority by the soldiers concerned, because they did not even take into account that there were children and pregnant women, and that the deceased were next of kin and friends of the survivors.” In particular, the situation of “Silvie Therméus, [who] was 16 weeks pregnant at the time of the detention and despite this she [was kept] in the same place as the rest of the detainees, without receiving differentiated care due to her special state of pregnancy. Also, the way that Roland Israel was treated […], who was 14 years old at the time of the facts, was reprehensible, because he did not receive treatment according to his particular vulnerability.” 74. The representatives also indicated that the right of the next of kin to moral integrity was violated owing to the suffering endured by their loved ones, owing to the impunity that persists in relation to the crimes committed against the victims and the consequent absence of reparations and, finally, owing to the failure to repatriate the bodies, which prevented the victims' next of kin from mourning those they lost appropriately, and the subsequent burial of the bodies in a mass grave in the Dominican Republic, at which time the State failed to facilitate the entry of the next of kin into its territory so that they could attend the burial. 75. At the public hearing, the State argued that the only interest of the members of the patrol was to stop possible drug or weapons trafficking, which, according to official sources, was expected to take place at the border that night, and they never had any intention of harming the physical integrity of the persons in the truck. This possibility “acquired greater credibility owing to the reckless attitude of the occupants of the truck, who [failed to obey] the order of the authorities to stop.” Moreover, the agents were unaware that the truck was carrying people because they were covered by a tarpaulin and this, added to the lack of illumination on the highway, the darkness of the night, and the way in which the occupants were positioned, prevented the agents from seeing the vehicle’s cargo clearly. 76. Regarding the personal integrity of the survivors, the State indicated at the public hearing that “there is no causal relationship […] between the presumed victims’ current injuries and what could have happened to them in 2000. It is important to recall that 11 years have passed and that the supposed blindness and other health problems alleged by […] the presumed victims in the statements [made at the public hearing], have no causal relationship with what could have happened 11 years ago or, at least, this does not appear in the case file.” In addition, it indicated that, in the absence of animus, it is not possible to substantiate the intention of the State agents in relation to the events. B. Considerations of the Court 77. The Court will now analyze the facts of this case in light of its consistent case law on the right to life and personal integrity in relation to its obligations of respect and 25