55. The Supreme Military Tribunal concluded the following: (…) the conduct displayed by (…) Luis Raúl Morales Rodríguez was not intended to cause any harm but [instead] (…) lacking in foresight, thoughtfulness or carefulness and induced by what he heard from the civilian and that everyone heard, he fired his weapon in the aforementioned way, which resulted in the highly negligent deprivation of life of civilian Mirey Trueba Arciniega.64 56. On September 17, 2002, an agreement was entered into between the representatives of the Secretariat of National Defense (SEDENA) and José Trueba Loera.65 The agreement set forth the following: The State asserts that because the persons probably responsible for the events occurring on August 21, 1998, wherein Mr. Mirey Trueba lost his life, were public servants (…) for this reason in this act, the amount of $117,822.00 (Mexican pesos) shall cover reparation for moral and material damages. (…) Citizen José Tomás Trueba Loera receives the above-referenced amount as payment in full (….) hereby considering the compensation as paid (…) and therefore does not reserve any right to any present or future civil or administrative action against the State (…) notwithstanding any criminal responsibility of the defendants, who are currently undergoing criminal trial.66 57. The judgment of the Supreme Military Tribunal of January 19, 2001, was peremptory. The Commission does not have any information about any other investigations relating to possible liability linked to the alleged acts and omissions that may have given rise to the obstruction and delay of the medical care that Mr. Mirey Trueba could have received. V. LEGAL ANALYSIS 58. The Commission notes that the main dispute in this case is related to the circumstances in which the death of Mr. Mirey Trueba came about. It is has not been refuted that the death of the alleged victim was caused by shots fired with a gun by Mexican Army Lieutenant Coronel Luis Morales. What is in dispute is, as the Mexican State believed and was concluded by the investigation in the military criminal jurisdiction, that the case involves an accidental death in the context of the use of force for a legitimate purpose. The petitioners claim that the death was the consequence of excessive use of force by a state agent, which resulted in the arbitrary deprivation of life of Mirey Trueba. Additionally, they alleged that members of the Army obstructed access to timely medical care. 59. In this regard, the Commission stresses that international human rights protection must not be confused with criminal justice. It is not the purpose of international human rights protection to mete out punishments to those culpable of violations thereof, but rather to determine whether the State in question fulfilled its international obligations and, in the event the State has not fulfilled them, protect the victims and provide for reparation for any damages that may have been caused to them by conduct attributable to the State. As such, the Commission must first clarify that it is not its duty to determine whether or not agents of the military are criminally liable for the death of Mr. Trueba, but rather to assess based on available information and in keeping with obligations emanating from the American Convention and applicable rules of the burden of proof, whether or not said agents compromised the State’s international responsibility. 64 State’s communication of August 23, 2004. 65 Agreement, September 17, 2002. State’s communication of October 25, 2002. 66 Agreement, September 17, 2002. State’s communication of October 25, 2002. 10