A. Right to life and humane treatment (Articles 4.167 and 5.168 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.169 and 270 of the same instrument) 60. The Commission has repeatedly asserted that the right to life is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights, without the respect thereof, all other rights are meaningless.71 As such, compliance with Article 4, in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention, does not only presuppose that no person can be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life (negative duty), but also requires that the States adopt any and all necessary measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive duty), pursuant to their obligation to guarantee the full and free exercise of human rights of all individuals under their jurisdiction.72 For its part, the European Court has highlighted the importance that the right to life be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective.73 61. Both the Inter-American Commission and Court have held that the use of force must be examined in any case in which force has been deployed, wherein State agents have killed or injured anyone.74 As such, the Commission will examine the facts of the case in light of Inter-American legal precedent on the right to life, in connection with the obligations to respect and ensure, and on the subject of the use of force. For this purpose, the IACHR will take note of different international instruments on the subject matter and, in particular, the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials and the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (hereinafter, “Principles on the Use of Force” and “Code of Conduct,” respectively). In keeping with the methodology followed by the Commission and the Court in cases of alleged excessive use of force, we will examine the use of force by the agents of the Mexican State against Mirey Trueba, at three junctures: a) preventive actions; b) actions at the time of the incidents; and c) actions subsequent to the events.75 1.1. Examination as to whether the Mexican State took preventive action 62. The Inter-American Commission has held that in the context of police or military operations, international law imposes several requirements, which derive from the protection afforded to the rights enshrined in the Convention, including the right to life.76 States must adopt the necessary measures to create 67 Article 4.1 of the American Convention: 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. 68 Article 5.1 of the American Convention: Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 69 Article 1.1 of the American Convention: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 70 Article 2 of the American Convention: Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 71 IACHR, Case 12.270, Report No. 2/15, Merits, Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández, Venezuela, January 29, 2015, par. 185. 72 IA Court of HR. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 80. Also, see: CIDH, Case 12.270, Report No. 2/15, Merits, Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández, Venezuela, January 29, 2015, par. 186. 73 ECHR, Case McCann and others v. The United Kingdom. Application No. 27229/95, 27 September 1995, § 146. 74 IA Court of HR. Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281. Par. 123; IACHR, Case 11.442, Report No. 90/14, Merits, Luis Jorge Valencia Hinojosa, Ecuador, November 4, 2014, par. 123. 75 IA Court of HR. Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281. Par. 124; and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al v. Dominican Republic. Merits Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012 Series C No. 251, par. 78; IACHR, Case 11.442, Report No. 90/14, Merits, Luis Jorge Valencia Hinojosa, Ecuador, November 4, 2014, par. 189. 76 IACHR, Case 11.442, Report No. 90/14, Merits, Luis Jorge Valencia Hinojosa, Ecuador, November 4, 2014, par. 168. 11