who had threatened the Landaeta brothers before their death. 180 Also, one of the eyewitnesses (Adeisa de la Trinidad Moffi García) indicated that she was the woman who got out of the agents’ white car (supra para. 62). In this regard, July Zacarías stated that she ran towards the agents to see what had happened and they told her that she should go home. However, the police agents did not mention this situation. In addition, the other witness (José Gregorio del Rosso Dona) indicated that he saw the incident because he was passing through the area and that, the following day, when he learned about the incident on the news, he decided to go and testify without being summoned by the authorities. 181 Meanwhile, agent GACF stated that he and AJCG threw themselves on the ground and fired from there, which does not concur with the trajectories of the bullets in the body of Igmar Landaeta. Even though all these statements support the hypothesis of the confrontation, they do not reveal clearly the sequence of the injuries and how the shot in the nasal septum occurred, or how, following this, Igmar Landaeta could still have been alive in order to be taken from the scene of the incident (infra para. 146). The State, in its defense before the Court, merely cited domestic procedures, without either corroborating or disproving any of the versions. In this regard, the State did not present consistent, congruent, reliable and sufficient evidence to consider that the deployment of lethal force against Igmar Landaeta, in the circumstances of the incident, was proportionate, or that the police agents who took part in the operation had attempted other less lethal means. 182 141. Consequently, regardless of the complete reliability of such evidence, the narration of the facts, and the probative elements, the Court notes that the use of lethal force would not have been necessary, so that it finds that, in particular, the second shot exceeded the proportionality of the use of force that could be used to achieve the supposed objective sought, consisting in the detention and/or subduing of Igmar Landaeta. Also, considering the above-mentioned problem of police abuse at the time of the events and the threats made against the family by the same agents, the Court finds that there are sufficient indications to consider that the second shot, when Igmar Landaeta was lying on the ground, was deliberate. 142. The Court has established that when State agents use unlawful, excessive or disproportionate force resulting in the loss of life, this is considered an arbitrary deprivation of life. 183 Consequently, the death of Igmar Landaeta, caused while he was being pursued, was the result of the disproportionate use of force owing to the actions of the law enforcement agents, which constituted an arbitrary deprivation of life that can be attributed to the State in violation of Article 4 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Igmar Landaeta. B.3 Actions following the incident: due diligence and humanity in relation to the obligation to respect and ensure the right to life 180 July Esther Zacarías de Villanueva was the sister of Carlos Julio Zacarías Moreno and testified in favor of the hypothesis of the confrontation of the police agents. Cf. Testimony of July Esther Zacarías de Villanueva of November 19, 1996 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 9180). From statements made in the domestic sphere, it can be inferred that July Esther Zacarías de Villanueva appears to have known the police agents before the incident, and some eyewitnesses stated that they had seen her in the white car during the events. July Zacarías denied these allegations (annexes to the answering brief, folios 9181, 9212 and 9282). 181 José Gregorio del Rosso Dona stated that, supposedly, he was in a brown car 50 meters from the scene of the incident and saw what happened; he was asked if he was able to see any woman or women after Igmar Landaeta had fallen to the ground injured, to which he responded that he only saw a woman who came out of her house but who did not approach the scene of the incident. Cf. Testimony of José Gregorio del Rosso Dona of November 19, 1996 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 9224). 182 89. Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra, para. 110, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al., supra, para. 183 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia), supra, para. 68, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al., supra, para. 92. 37