also today, […] it had and continues to have an adequate regulatory framework to prevent or punish the arbitrary deprivation of life. It argued that in the instant case, international standards regarding the use of lethal force by state agents were observed. Thus, regarding the legitimate purpose, it indicated that the action of the military was framed in the context of an anti-crime operation on the "high seas," carried out in the face of recurring robberies that were reported by the community. 99. Regarding the absolute necessity, it pointed out that "the use by the military of their firearms occurred at the moment in which they were shot." It also stressed that, based on the investigations carried out, it was found that the boat used by the agents had holes in the upper and lower part of the bow, so the use of force corresponded "to the need to protect their own lives and integrity." As to proportionality, it stated that, based on the testimonies taken, it was determined that "the use of force corresponded to the will of the members of the Naval Force to stop the boat, firing at the engine," which “coincid[ed] with the seat where Luis Eduardo Casierra [Quiñonez] was located, given that he was the helmsman.” 100. The State indicated that the circumstances of the case and the evidentiary elements “did not make it possible [to] establish whether the shots came from the boat” of the alleged victims, and that “no weapons were found in their possession,” added to the fact that no criminal proceedings were initiated against them for piracy; however, it must be taken into account that the facts of the case “are the product of an operation that took place in difficult circumstances, on the high seas, in total darkness, on a moving vessel.” A.2. Right to property 101. The representatives indicated that, as a result of military personnel's actions, the boat owned by Ms. Shirley Lourdes Quiñonez Bone “was rendered unusable after more than [forty] shots.” The above meant “a real limitation” to her right to property, especially when the State, to date, has not paid “just compensation,” in the terms of Article 21(2) of the Convention. The State indicated that the argument of the representatives lies outside the factual framework of the case. The Commission did not rule on this alleged violation. B. Considerations of the Court 102. The Court notes that, based on that stated by the parties and the Commission, in this case there is no dispute that the activities of the members of the Ecuadorian Navy during the “anti-crime operation” carried out on December 8, 1999, resulted in the death of Luis Eduardo and the injuries caused to his brothers Andrés Alejandro and Sebastián Darlin,91 all with the surnames Casierra Quiñonez (supra paras. 51 and 52). 103. From this account, the controversy resides in the analysis about the observance of interAmerican standards, by military personnel when using lethal force in the framework of the aforementioned operation and in the alleged violation of the right to property in relation to the boat owned by Ms. Shirley Lourdes Quiñonez Bone. Based on this, the Court will make the respective analysis. As to the injuries caused to Sebastián Darlin Casierra Quiñonez, although Merits Report, when referring to the fact, mentioned that it had been reported to the authorities “as a result of the shots […] he was injured in his left hand,” the State acknowledged that the actions of military personnel “caused […] the […] effects [on his] [personal] integrity.” Cf. Answer brief (merits file, volume IV, folio 894). 91 24