ex officio to gather with due diligence, which did not occur in the instant case. On the contrary, the Commission finds that the determinations of the criminal courts in the military jurisdiction were essentially based on the operational orders and on the versions of events provided by the Navy personnel who were involved in the events themselves. Furthermore, the Commission notes that the testimonies gathered and their respective appraisal without minimum guarantees of independence and impartiality, as well as the determinations of a jurisdiction per se incompatible with the Convention, cannot constitute a satisfactory explanation of strict compliance with the principles of legitimate purpose, necessity, and proportionality of use of lethal force in a specific case. 59. The foregoing is sufficient to conclude that the State has not provided a satisfactory explanation of the use of lethal force based on an independent, impartial investigation conducted with due diligence. That aside, the IACHR notes various elements in the record that confirm that the use of lethal force was incompatible with the State's international obligations. 60. First, the examinations and inspections of the scene turned up none of the supposed firearms that the Casierra brothers and other fishermen had allegedly used on their vessel. Nor is there anything in the record to show that on December 8, 1999, any firearms were confiscated from the fishermen, notwithstanding the fact that those individuals were in the custody of the State. Thus, the Commission finds that the only basis for arguing that there was a prior attack were the statements of the agents involved and the existence of holes in the state vessel, of which no evaluation was done to determine the type of firearm or the possible age of those hole. 61. Second, as regards the issues of legitimate purpose and absolute necessity, the information provided by the State to the a IACHR, the statements of the agents involved, and the authorities in the military criminal jurisdiction all agree that the state agents discharged their firearms at the engine of the vessel carrying the Casierra brothers while it was fleeing. Despite what the State said, the IACHR notes that, according to the record, the shots were aimed at the vessel's superstructure and struck the individuals on board, as was effectively demonstrated by Luis Eduardo’s death and Andrés Alejandro’s wounds. The Commission also highlights that flight can never be considered the basis of legitimate purpose and strict necessity in the use of lethal force, unless there are signs that another person's life is in danger. As the Court has stated, “it cannot be concluded that the requirement of ‘absolute necessity’ to use force against a person has been met when such a person does not represent a direct danger, ‘even when the failure to use force results in the loss of the opportunity to capture them.’”48 62. As mentioned, in this case, there is nothing that minimally shows that there was a prior armed attack from the vessel that was carrying the Casierra brothers, since no weapons were confiscated from the fishermen and no evidence was found to that effect in the subsequent investigative procedures. In any event, even if one accepts, for the sake of discussion, that there was a prior attack, several sources concur that the objective of the gunfire on the part of the State agents was to prevent the flight of the vessel following the alleged attack. In other words, there is nothing in the State's own version to conclude that the supposed attack remained ongoing at the time that lethal force was used; therefore, the only acceptable purpose—to protect life—remained valid. On the contrary, the IACHR reiterates that several sources agree that at the time that lethal force was used, the fishermen’s vessel was taking flight and the objective of the use of force was to prevent that situation. 63. Finally, with regard to proportionality, according to the visual inspection contained in the record, the Casierra brothers' vessel had a total of 49 holes caused by the use of firearms. The Commission considers that, in addition to the preceding elements, that suggests a disproportionate use of lethal force by the State. 64. Based on the foregoing, in the instant case the State has not demonstrated that it used legitimate force and the grave consequences of that were that Luis Eduardo Casierra was killed and Andrés 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. 134. 48 9