Within the region, it is sometimes suggested —or is even carried out directly— that military troops take over internal security based on the argument that violence or criminal acts are on the rise. The Commission has also addressed this point, stating that arguments of this type “confuse the concepts of public security and national security, when there is no doubt that the level of ordinary crime, however high this may be, does not constitute a military threat to the sovereignty of the State.”83 67. In the above-cited report, the Commission expressed its concern over “the involvement of the armed forces in professional tasks that, given their nature, fall strictly with the purview of the police force. The Commission has repeatedly observed that the armed forces are not properly trained to deal with citizen security; hence the need for an efficient civilian police force, respectful of human rights and able to combat citizen insecurity, crime and violence on the domestic front.”84 68. The Commission also noted that even though, in some instances, the Armed Forces participate in the investigation of criminal offenses linked to drug trafficking and organized crime, if a democratic system is to function properly, these kinds of activities should be the purview of civilian police forces, subject to the necessary scrutiny by the legislature and, if need be, the judicial branch.85 69. For its part, the Inter-American Court has emphasized “the extreme care which States must exercise when they decide to use their Armed Forces as a means of controlling social protests, domestic disturbances, internal violence, public emergencies and common crime.”86 In the words of the Court: (…) States must restrict to the greatest extent the use of Armed Forces to control domestic crime or internal violence, since they are trained to defeat a legitimate target and not to protect and control civilians, a training that corresponds to police forces.87 The strict fulfillment of the duty to prevent and protect endangered rights must be assumed by the domestic authorities, observing a clear demarcation between military and police duties.88 70. Additionally, taking into account that in the instant case, before killing him, the military agents stopped the vehicle Mr. Trueba was riding in, the IACHR regards the ruling of the Inter-American Court as pertinent to this case to the effect that “the possibility of assigning the Armed Forces tasks aimed at restricting the personal liberty of civilians, in addition to meeting the requirements of strict proportionality in the restriction of a right, must respond, in turn, to strict exceptional criteria and due diligence in the protection of treaty guarantees,”89 bearing in mind that the system of the armed forces, from which it is difficult for members to remove themselves, is not compatible with the functions of civilian authorities.90 83IACHR. Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights. 2009, par. 103. 84 IACHR. Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights. 2009, par. 100; And IACHR. Justice and Social Inclusion: Challenges of Democracy in Guatemala. 2003, par. 113. 85 IACHR. Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights. 2009, par. 104; and IACHR. Report: Social Justice and Inclusion: The Challenges of Democracy in Guatemala. 2003, par. 113. 86 IA Court of HR. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010 Series C No. 220, par. 87; Case of Montero Aranguren et al (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, par. 78. 87 IA Court of HR. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010 Series C No. 220, par. 88; Case of Montero Aranguren et al (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, par. 78. 88 IA Court of HR. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010 Series C No. 220, par. 88; and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 51. 89 IA Court of HR. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010 Series C No. 220. Par. 89. 90 IA Court of HR. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010 Series C No. 220. Par. 89. 13