85. Based on the foregoing, the State must demonstrate the legitimate purpose, absolute necessity, and proportionality of the use of lethal force in the specific circumstances of each case. In addition, as a result of those principles, the Commission recalls that state agents who take part in 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.”106 86. In the instant case, what is disputed is whether, as the State maintains, the deaths of Laura Raggio, Silvia Reyes, and Diana Maidanik, occurred in a shoot-out between the armed forces and the alleged victims or whether, as the petitioner claims, they were extrajudicial executions. 87. In light of the above, the IACHR will analyze whether, regardless of the Joint Forces' version of what happened, the judicial determinations as part of the criminal proceedings met the abovementioned standards of a satisfactory explanation. Here, the Commission issues a reminder that in the criminal proceedings there is absolutely no clarification of the circumstances surrounding what happened. There are no findings related to such basic procedures as forensic or on-site inspections of the crime scene, expert opinions on the paths taken by bullets fired, atomic absorption spectrometry of the alleged victims' hands, or the result of confrontations between eye-witnesses and the next-of-kin of the alleged victims with testimony delivered by members of the joint forces taking part in the operation, which, taken together, would have helped provide a satisfactory account of the circumstances surrounding the facts of the case/ On the contrary, with respect to investigation, barriers were erected through the Expiry law to prevent clarification of the facts. 88. Apart from all that, the Commission considers that there is circumstantial evidence that, when taken as a whole, points to unjustified use of force and, rather. to the perpetration of extrajudicial executions. In particular: - The context surrounding the facts of the case, including systematic practice of extrajudicial executions. - Statements given by family members of the alleged victims and the stance taken by the State, according to which the facts of the case are related to the disappearance of Washington Barrios, Silvia Reyes's husband, which occurred later, added to his mother's statement according to which a member of the Joint Forces had asked her on the day it all happened "where is your son, because I personally am going to kill him," which suggests that the operation had been intentionally planned. - The various statements by witnesses on the circumstances surrounding what happened, which showed that parameters regarding the legitimate use of force were not followed in the operation, as evidenced by the bursts of gunfire lasting between 5 and 15 minutes, even though, according to some witnesses' testimony, the alleged victims were pleading not to be shot at and killed. - In addition, the IACH wishes to point out that the nature of the wounds on the alleged victims' bodies suggests that the use of force deployed bore no relation to any proportional response or necessary use of fore criterion. According to witnesses, for example, one of the corpses lacked an ear, her abdomen and sides were totally wasted, and she had bullet wounds all over her body, especially to her face, forehead, and legs. 89. In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the Uruguayan State is responsible for violation of the right to life established in Article 1 of the American Declaration, to the detriment of Laura Raggio, Silvia Reyes y Diana Maidanik. B. Rights to recognition as a person before the law (juridical personality), personal liberty, personal integrity, and the right to life (Articles 3, 7, 5, and 4 of the American Convention), in conjunction with I/A Court HR. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012, Series C No. 251, par. 85. 106 17