collected, they establish a consistency in all the details and circumstances that occurred and that were experienced by them.”35 47. The judge found that the Navy personnel acted in accordance with “the rules of engagement, first by identifying themselves as a military patrol and, in responding to the unexpected attack with firearms upon them, by using their firearms for the purposes by firing into the air; and, faced with the persistent disobedience by the vessel's crew members ... who failed to stop, the military personnel used the weapons to neutralize said vessel's means of propulsion.” The judge concluded that "consequently, the accused ... have not committed any crime and bear no responsibility, since it has been confirmed that that they were carrying out their duties in accordance to law and that their actions were devoid of any intent to kill or injure the individuals named.”36 48. The State said that on May 31, 2000, the judge of the Third Naval Zone referred the order to dismiss to the Court of Military Justice in Quito.37 49. On June 21, 2001, the Court of Military Justice in Quito confirmed the order to dismiss the case with prejudice and acquitted the accused38 based on the same conclusions as the Military Criminal Tribunal of the Third Naval Zone in Esmeraldas. IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Rights to life and humane treatment of Luis Eduardo Casierra and right to humane treatment of Andrés Alejandro Casierra (Articles 4.139 and 5.140 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 thereof) 50. The Commission recalls that the right to life is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights and if it is not respected all other rights are meaningless. 41 Compliance with Article 4, in combination with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, “not only requires that no person be deprived of his life arbitrarily, but also that the States take all appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life, as part of their duty to ensure full and free exercise of the rights by all persons under their jurisdiction. 42 Those obligations apply equally to the right to humane treatment. 51. Both the Commission and the Court have stated that any use or deployment of force in which State agents cause the death of, or injuries to, an individual, must be analyzed to determine its legitimacy.43 In that regard, when a death is alleged to have occurred as a consequence of the use of force, the organs of the interAmerican system have laid down clear rules as to the burden of proof. The Inter-American Court has held that “whenever the use of force [by state agents] results in the death or injuries to one or more individuals, the State has the obligation to give a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events and to rebut allegations over its liability, through appropriate evidentiary elements.” 44 Annex 4, Order to dismiss of the Military Criminal Court of the Third Naval Zone, May 24, 2000. Enclosed with the State's communication of July 15, 2016. 36 Annex 4, Order to dismiss of the Military Criminal Court of the Third Naval Zone, May 24, 2000. Enclosed with the State's communication of July 15, 2016. 37 State's communication of July 15, 2016. 38 State's communication of July 15, 2016. 39 Article 4.1. Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 40 Article 5.1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 41 IACHR, Case 12.270, Report No. 2/15, Merits, Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández, Venezuela, January 29, 2015, par. 185. 42 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, par. 80. 43 I/A Court H.R., Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C. No. 281, par. 123; IACHR, Case 11.442, Report No. 90/14, Merits, Luis Jorge Valencia Hinojosa, Ecuador, November 4, 2014, par. 123. 44 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, par. 108; Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of April 17, 2015, Series C. No. 292, par. 291; and Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C. No. 281, par. 132. 35 7