an adequate legal framework to deter any threat to this right.77 The Inter-American Commission and Court have held that States have a duty to adapt their national laws and to “see that their security forces, which are entitled to use legitimate force, respect the right to life of the individuals under their jurisdiction.”78 63. With regard to this duty, the Court has fleshed out the following obligations: i) the State must be “clear when defining domestic policies on the use of force and pursue strategies to implement the Principles on the Use of Force and the Code of Conduct;” ii) agents should be provided with different types of weapons, ammunition, and protective equipment that enable them to adapt the elements used in their reaction proportionately to the incidents in which they have to intervene, restricting the use of lethal weapons that can cause injury or death as much as possible,79 and iii) the State must train its agents to ensure that they know the legal provisions that permit the use of firearms and are properly trained so that if they have to decide on their use, they have the relevant criteria do so.80 64. The Inter-American Court has established that during an incident when a display of authority is deployed, insofar as possible, “the State agents should assess the situation and draw up a plan of action before intervening.”81 Regarding this same obligation, the European Court has highlighted that “unregulated and arbitrary” actions of State agents “is incompatible with effective respect for human rights.” In the words of the European Court: (…) in keeping with the importance of Article 2 [right to life] in a democratic society, the Court must subject allegations of breach of this provision to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of the State agents who actually administered the force but also all the surrounding circumstances, including such matters as the planning and control of the actions under examination (…).82 65. In the instant case, the Commission notes that at the time immediately prior to the death of the Mr. Trueba, a group of military agents requested the vehicle in which the alleged victim and two other persons were driving to stop. Regarding the conduct of its agents, the State generally claimed that at the time of the incidents, because of violence linked to drug trafficking, a military outpost was established in Baborigame under the command of Lieutenant Luis Morales, who was the person who shot Mr. Trueba. Based on the arguments put forth by the State and the evidence available in the case file of the military criminal jurisdiction, it is not clear that these events took place in the context of a specific military operation nor are the date and the location of the death of the alleged victim clear either. However, based on claims of both parties, what is clear is that at that time, in general terms, the Mexican Army was engaged in law enforcement activities in the area. 66. The Commission has ruled repeatedly on delegation of law enforcement duties to armed forces. Accordingly, in its Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights, the Commission wrote that: 77 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. 81; and Case of Montero Aranguren et al (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, par. 66. 78 IACHR, Case 11.442, Report No. 90/14, Merits, Luis Jorge Valencia Hinojosa, Ecuador, November 4, 2014, par. 168. Also, see: IA Court of HR. Case of Montero Aranguren et al, (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, par. 66. 79 IA Court of HR. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012 Series C No. 251, par. 80. 80 IA Court of HR. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012 Series C No. 251, par. 84. 81 IA Court of HR. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012 Series C No. 251, par. 81. 82 ECHR, Case Makaratzis v. Greece . Application No. 50385/99/95, 20 December 2004, § 59. 12