occurred with agents of the Aragua State Police, known as the Operations Support Brigade, of Police Zone No. 09, Tumero, state of Aragua. It indicated that the circumstances of the death of Igmar Landaeta had not been fully clarified by the eyewitnesses. B. Considerations of the Court 122. The Inter-American Court has established that the right to life plays a fundamental role in the American Convention, because it is the essential presumption for the exercise of the other rights. States have the obligation to guarantee the creation of the conditions required to ensure that violations of this inalienable right do not occur and, in particular, the obligation to prevent its agents from violating this right. Observance of Article 4, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, not only supposes that no one may be deprived of their life arbitrarily (negative obligation), but also that States are required to take all appropriate measures to protect and to preserve the right to life (positive obligation), 147 in accordance with the obligation to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the full and free exercise of their rights. 148 123. The Court recalls that the use of force must be examined in any case in which force has been deployed and in which State agents have killed or injured anyone. In view of the fact that Igmar Landaeta lost his life owing to a supposed confrontation with police intelligence agents, the Court will now analyze the facts of this case in light of its consistent case law on the right to life in relation to the obligations to respect and to ensure rights and with regard to the use of force, 149 in order to rule on the alleged violation of this right. 124. Accordingly, the Court takes note of the different international instruments in this regard and, in particular, the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law 150 Enforcement Officials and the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (hereinafter, “the Principles on the Use of Force” and “the Code of Conduct,” respectively). On this basis, as indicated by this Court in the case of Nadege Dorzema v. Dominican Republic, 151 the Court will analyze the use of force by State agents, taking into account three essential moments: 152 (a) preventive actions; (b) actions at the time of the incident, and (c) actions following the incident. B.1 Preventive actions: lawfulness and exceptionality of the use of force in relation to the obligations to ensure rights and to adapt domestic law 125. The facts of the case and the evidence provided in the proceedings before the Court reveal that, at the time of the facts, Venezuela did not have laws establishing parameters for the use of force by State agents. In this regard, during the public hearing 147 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 117. 148 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 91, and Case of Gutiérrez and family members supra, para. 97. 149 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, paras. 67 and ff., and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 77. 150 Cf. United Nations, Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Havana, Cuba, from 27 August to 7 September 1990, and Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by General Assembly resolution 34/169, of 17 December 1979. 151 Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al., supra, para. 78. 152 Cf. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, supra, Principles Nos. 5, 6, 7, 11(f), 22 and 23, and Code of Conduct, supra, articles 1 to 8. 31