for the warning to be observed, except when such a warning would unduly place the officer at risk or create a risk of death or serious harm to other persons. 81. On this issue, the Commission will examine the available information regarding the use of deadly force by Lieutenant Coronel Luis Morales against Mr. Trueba. Based on the accounts provided above, the Commission notes that there is no dispute as to the following facts: i) the vehicle in which Mr. Trueba and two other persons were riding was stopped by a group of members of the military, among whom Lieutenant Coronel Luis Morales was included; ii) Mr. Trueba and the two people accompanying him got out of the vehicle; iii) Mr. Trueba began to run in the opposite direction of the group of soldiers; iv) Lieutenant Coronel Luis Morales fired eleven rounds of ammunition from his gun in the direction Trueba was running in; v) Trueba was hit by the shots, and was seriously wounded; and vi) Mr. Trueba died shortly after the events. 82. The only mention by the Mexican State of a possible justification of the use of deadly force was that Mr. Trueba dropped a weapon, which he picked back up as he was running away from the location and allegedly said “don’t follow me ‘cause I’ll shoot.” In light of these circumstances and based on the decisions of the military criminal courts, the State claimed that the purpose of the use of deadly force was “to frighten him and prevent him from escaping.” 83. In order to determine whether or not the State provided a satisfactory explanation on the use of deadly force in light of the facts mentioned above, the Commission notes preliminarily that, as was established in the proven facts section, the case was heard and disposed of in the military criminal jurisdiction. This jurisdiction, as was explained earlier, does not fulfill the requirements of independence and impartiality as demanded by the American Convention in order to elucidate and punish crimes such as those in the case at hand. Consequently, the evidence gathered and the assessment thereof, which was lacking the minimum guarantees of independence and impartiality, and the rulings of the jurisdiction, in and of themselves, are incompatible with the Convention and, as such, cannot constitute a satisfactory explanation of strict compliance with the principles of legitimate purpose, necessity and proportionality in the use of deadly force in the case before us. 84. Notwithstanding the foregoing considerations, the Commission notes that beyond this incompatibility between the investigation conducted in the case and the American Convention, the specific rulings of the military criminal courts raised by the Mexican State as the basis of its defense do not satisfy the above-mentioned principles either. 85. The Commission first notes that based on the documentation introduced, the only reference to the existence of a gun is the statement of the very same state agents involved in the case. However, there is no information to corroborate said account and, on the contrary, there is evidence indicating otherwise. In this regard, the two persons accompanying Mr. Trueba testified consistently during the course of the investigation that he was not carrying any weapon. This evidence was not refuted by the State with any other contradicting evidence beyond the findings of the military criminal courts, which is also lacking the independence and impartiality required to reach such decisions, as will be examined below in the instant report. Additionally, the Commission finds as particularly relevant the fact that there is no physical evidence of the existence of said weapon. Accordingly, the petitioners claimed that when the visual inspection was conducted, no gun was found in the immediate area. These circumstances, considered as a whole, enable the IACHR to affirm that the hypothesis that Mr. Trueba was carrying a gun is groundless. 86. Secondly, even if we accept the hypothesis that has not been proven by the State through an effective investigation, to the effect that Mr. Trueba picked a gun back up that he had dropped, there is no information at all to indicate that he had fired this alleged gun at the military agents. As such, the Commission finds that the mere presence of a gun is not sufficient reason to exercise the use of deadly force, especially when, as was noted above, the military officers themselves acknowledged that Mr. Trueba was attempting to escape from the location, by running away in opposite direction of them. This is consistent with the justification provided by the State to the Commission mentioned earlier, to the effect that the purpose of the use of deadly force was not to protect the state agents from a risk to their lives, but rather to frighten Mr. Trueba and prevent him from getting away. This purpose does not constitute a valid reason to exert deadly 16