22 Joint Command of the Armed Forces57, as well as with a report on the March 22, 1993 military operation signed by the then General of the Army and Minister of National Defence and addressed to the President of the National Congress58. 75. The dispute between the parties remains open regarding the circumstances in which these persons were deprived of their life, the legal qualification of these facts and the corresponding assessment of the State’s international responsibility under Article 4 of the American Convention. 76. The Commission alleged that the use of force by state agents was not reasonable, restricted nor controlled, but rather excessive given the alleged planning of the military operation, the number of persons involved and the characteristics of said operation. It also pointed out that special care and attention were called for in the planning stage of the intervention of the Armed Forces, in order to prevent harm to private individuals. This contrasts with the facts that damages were inflicted on the property and integrity of private individuals. Moreover, there is no documentation indicating that judicial proceedings were held on these matters, nor that any reparation was made for the harm done. Furthermore, comparing the number of soldiers who participated in the operation with the number of weapons seized, and given that no information was provided regarding acts of resistance in the course of the operation, the Commission indicated that it is not possible to demonstrate the urgency required or to justify the volume of force used. As such, the Commission considers that the State “failed in its duty to prevent the deaths” of the alleged victims, “made disproportionate use of force, and thereby arbitrarily deprived [these persons] of their lives” and is therefore responsible for violating Article 4(1) of the Convention. Cf. Note 002-WF-R-93 of March 11, 1993, operative report submitted to the Chief Officer of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces by the Chief Officer of the Air Battle Command and Air Force No. 2 (annexes to the application, annex 39, folio 594): 57 “[t]he individuals identified are criminals who have committed, according to their records a great number [sic] of assaults mostly in the city of Guayaquil, and who were members of a Foreign Drug Dealers Network for the distribution and sell of Drugs […] [The operation] strictly respected what had been planned which is why [sic] there would have been only [sic] three deaths, whom were the only individuals to oppose [sic[ resistance with arms […]. [The operation] succeeded in disintegrating a Gang of Banks and Commercial Institutions Robbers who was operating in various parts of the city and whom money was distributed both for the subversion and to satisfy their vices”. 58 Cf. Report on the March 22, 1993, military operation (Annexes to the application, Annex 51, folio 620): “The level of criminality in the city of Guayaquil not only affects the independence of the State, forcing him to use a big part of its resources for the repressive fight against this adverse element, but also affects the juridical order and hinder the already difficult progresses toward the country’ social and economic development. The strategic previsions in the event that this phenomenon was not neutralized in a timely manner could indicate social disintegration and violence which would affect the domestic security of the Nation. The concept of national security, defined in Article 2 of the National Security Law, does not only involve the maintenance of domestic order, but also the preservation of important and transcendental values, both individuals and collectives, which are related to the survival of the Nation itself. It concerns therefore a transcendental mission, for which the Armed Force have been entrusted by this constitutional rule. [I]t is important that the crime, considered as a constant phenomenon of any conglomeration of persons, remains within reasonable limits. When it exceeds the level of tolerance, when it threatens to take possession of a city or country, affecting the production and commerce, threatening the existence of a society itself, when the action of the National Police is not sufficient, it is legitimate and necessary to use the Armed Forces, as was ordered by the Chief of the Executive Power […] [B]ecause the military and the police who confronts an ambush, a trap, the perfidious use of machine guns by individuals who are not arrested, or the murder of innocents, they ask themselves if they do not have human rights as well, because they do not hear any voice of solidarity or protest in their favor on behalf of organizations who work for the protection of such rights. On the contrary, it is really common to defend the human rights of terrorists, with attitudes that exceed the corresponding loable acts of humanity and solidarity.