order.52 On October 7 of that same year, the petitioner filed an appeal against the judge's decision.53 The IACHR has no information as to how said appeal was resolved. 57. Regarding the suit on behalf of Walter Huacón and his next-of-kin, ordinary trial proceedings were admitted.54 On October 25 of the same year, the Fifth Civil Court Judge n Guayaquil ordered payment of one percent of the total damages claimed, which were four million dollars.55 58. On November 7, the Procurator's Office argued failure to pay the corresponding judicial fee.56 The next day, it raised the objection that the judge was territorially incompetent to hear the case.57 59. On December 21, the Fifth Civil Court Judge in Guayaquil revoked the interlocutory order of October 25, 2000 inasmuch as "the nature of the proceeding is of an indeterminate amount, because damages are claimed the amount of which will be set by the judge in his ruling (...) so that the figures requested by the plaintiff are merely points of reference."58 60. On May 21, 2001, the judge convened the parties to an arbitration session.59 The IACHR has no further information as to how that proceeding went or ended. The State did not contest the petitioner's claim that none of these suits was resolved. IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Right to life (Article 4.1 60 of the American Convention in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof) 61. Both the IACHR and the Inter-American Court have pointed out that the right to life is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights and if it is not respected all other rights are meaningless. 61 Likewise, compliance with the obligations derived from Article 4.1 of the American Convention not only presupposes that no one is deprived or his or her life arbitrarily; it also establishes the duty of States to prevent its agents from violating that right.62 The Court in addition ruled as follows: States must adopt all necessary measures to create a legal framework that deters any possible threat to the right to life; establish an effective legal system to investigate, punish, and redress deprivation of life by State officials or private individuals; and guarantee the right to unimpeded access to conditions for a dignified life. Especially, States must see that their security forces, which are entitled to use legitimate force, respect the right to life of the individuals under their jurisdiction.63 62. Bearing in mind the nature of the facts of the instant case, the Commission deems it necessary to issue a reminder regarding the relevant standards that apply to the use of force by State security forces. Here, the IACHR has pointed out that that empowerment must be restricted to cases in which there is a legitimate purpose and the use of force is necessary and proportionate.64 That means that if a person loses Interlocutory order of the Seventh Civil Court Judge of October 1, 2002. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 53 Petitioners' reply, October 7, 2002. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 54 Interlocutory order of the Fifth Civil Court Judge of May 3, 2000. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 55 Interlocutory order of the Fifth Civil Court Judge of October 25, 2000. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 56 Reply to the complaint by the Guayas District Representative of the State Procurator-General's Office, November 7, 2002. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 57 Reply to the complaint by the Guayas District Representative of the State Procurator-General's Office, November 8, 2002. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 58 Interlocutory order of the Fifth Civil Court Judge of December 21, 2000. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 59 Interlocutory order of the Fifth Civil Court Judge of May 21, 2001. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 60 Article 4.1. Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 61 IACHR. Report No. 33/13. Case 11.576. Admissibility and Merits. José Luis García Ibarra and family. Ecuador, July 10, 2013, par. 129. I/A Court HR. The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, par. 144. 62 I/A Court HR. Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 80; The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Judgment on the merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, par. 144. 63 I/A Court HR. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, par. 66. 64 IACHR. Report on Terrorism and Human Rights. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.116, doc. 5, par. 88. 52 8