26 that reason, upon learning that firearms have been used by members of its security forces with lethal consequences, the State has the obligation to initiate, ex officio and without delay, a serious, 148 independent, impartial and effective investigation. This arises from the obligation, incumbent on States, to “see that their security forces, which are entitled to use legitimate force, respect the right to life of the 149 individuals under their jurisdiction.” In addition, in cases in which extrajudicial killings are alleged: It is essential that the States effectively investigate the deprivation of the right to life, and in its case, punish all those responsible, especially when state agents are involved, since on the contrary, it would be creating, within an environment of impunity, the conditions necessary for the repetition of this type of facts, which is contrary to the duty to respect and guarantee the right to life. Besides, if the acts that violate human rights are not investigated seriously, they would, in some 150 way, result aided by public power, which compromises the State’s international responsibility. 127. The United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions contains investigation guidelines that must be followed when 151 examining a possible extrajudicial killing. 128. In the case at hand, the petitioners claim that as a consequence of the unnecessary, deliberate, and disproportionate actions of a member of the Army, two people were killed and another was seriously injured, and that the State is therefore responsible for violating the alleged victims’ right to life and to humane treatment, in that it had the positive obligation of protecting its citizens’ lives through the actions of its police and armed forces. They contend that although the State’s international responsibility in this case has been fully established, the judicial authorities have failed to make full amends for the harm inflicted on the victims by rejecting the inclusion in the civil redress of future losses from what the deceased victims should have earned and, with respect to Luis Alberto Bejarano, by only taking into consideration the injury that endangered his life and his inability to work. 129. The State, in turn, has acknowledged the facts established by the Commission, and it claims it has an institutional and regulatory framework that allows the investigation and prosecution of those suspected of human rights violations, which includes the investigation undertaken by the Public Prosecution Service in the case at hand. In addition, regarding the matter of comprehensive redress for the victims and their next-of-kin, the State indicates that in 2006 it adopted the regulatory framework of the Comprehensive Reparations Plan for the victims of the violence that took place between May 1980 and November 2000, in compliance with the conclusions and recommendations of the Truth and 147 I/A Court H. R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 4, 2007, Series C No. 166, para. 85. 148 I/A Court H. R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 4, 2007, Series C No. 166, para. 88; I/A Court H. R., Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 7, 2003, Series C No. 99, para. 112. See also: Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C No. 160, para. 256; and I/A Court H. R., Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 26, 2006, Series C No. 155, para. 77. Similarly, see also: ECHR, Erdogan and Others v. Turkey, supra note 66, paras. 122-123; and ECHR, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], Nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, paras. 111-112, July 6, 2005. 149 I/A Court H. R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 4, 2007, Series C No. 166, para. 81; I/A Court H. R., 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, para. 66. See also: I/A Court H. R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C No. 160, para. 238; and I/A Court H. R., Case of Servellón García et al., Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 21, 2006, Series C No. 152, para. 102. 150 I/A Court H. R., Case of Servellón García et al., Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 21, 2006, Series C No. 152, para. 123; I/A Court H. R., Case of Baldeón García v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of April 6, 2006, Series C No. 147, para. 91; I/A Court H. R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of 31 January 2006, Series C No. 140, para. 145; I/A Court H. R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 15, 2005, Series C No. 134, paras. 137 and 232. 151 United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, E/ST/CSDHA/.12 (1991).