88 X VIOLATION TO ARTICLE 4 (RIGHT TO LIFE) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) OF THE SAME Arguments of the Commission 228. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 4 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same, the Commission argued, in synthesis, the following: “Lack of prevention and excessive use of force” a) there was an express lack of prevision of Peruvian authorities in supervising and controlling inmates within the pavilions in which there was an alleged resistance to the transfer, and in the permitting the entrance of weapons; b) when initiating the operative the State did not recur to alternative mechanisms tending to achieve a negotiated solution to the transfer or to weakening the capacity of resistance of the inmates and expressly rejected the intervention of the representatives of the International Red Cross Committee, of the Episcopal Commission of Social Action, of the National Human Rights Coordinator, and of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights. The State’s police officials employed, from the start of the operative, excessive force and even warlike material that caused the partial destruction of the pavilions object of the operative; c) all transfer action of detainees must be planned and controlled in order to reduce to a minimum the use of force and the risks to the life and physical integrity of the people involved, and it must have the necessary provisions in order to determine the responsibilities of state agents that use their weapons; d) the legitimate use of public force implies, among other factors, that it must be necessary and proportionate. The police and other officers in charge of enforcing the law must protect the rights to life, liberty, and security of the person, being able to employ force, only, in a case of direct or imminent danger of death or injuries for the agents themselves or other people; e) to resist the entrance of police officers to the criminal center, some of the inmates may have triggered fire weapons, with discrepancy between the parties regarding the number, power, scope, and functionality of said weapons. This situation cannot be clarified due to the irregular handling of evidence and the partial destruction of the results of the investigation; f) the evidence provided by the State proves that the majority of the fatal victims presented between 3 and 12 bullet wounds, some of these in their lower extremities, and that other fatal and injured victims presented injuries compatible with those produced by blunt or sharp objects and lacerations that could be the consequence of beatings. Additionally, it has been proven that the form in which the operative was carried out from its beginning, employing explosives to knock down walls, and up to its conclusion, with the partial demolition of pavilion 4B of the criminal center Castro Castro, which process an disproportionate use of force, and in an