case was forwarded to the Central Judicial Archives following this dismissal (supra para. 96). 242. The Court recalls that, in this case, the events in which Igmar Landaeta lost his life occurred in a situation of the use of force by police agents for which this Court has established that the State violated Article 4 of the Convention, owing to the disproportionate use of such force which resulted in the arbitrary deprivation of Igmar Landaeta’s life (supra para. 142). The State’s obligation to investigate is increased in cases of the use of lethal force by State agents where the determination of whether this was excessive and, as a result, there was an arbitrary deprivation of life, should be examined by a serious, independent, impartial and effective proceeding, 304 promptly and thoroughly, 305 taking into account all the circumstances and the context of the events, including the planning and control measures, 306 as well as avoiding omissions in the collection of evidence and in following up on logical lines of investigation. 307 243. The Court reiterates that it is not a criminal court in which the responsibility of the individual is analyzed, 308 because it is for the domestic courts to assess the evidence and to apply the criminal law to those who commit offenses. However, the Court has indicated that, in order to analyze whether the State violated Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, it may need to examine the respective domestic proceedings, particularly the investigations on which the opening and progress of such proceedings depend, 309 within the framework of its competence and functions. 244. Accordingly, the Court notes that during the domestic proceedings, the Second Court and the Appellate Court in its first decision indicated that the “second shot should not have been necessary” 310 and that there was “a disproportion between the harm caused by the agent and the intention of committing a wrongful act,” 311 to the detriment of Igmar Landaeta. However, the judgment of November 10, 2003 (the second appeal that was decided) merely indicated that the court had applied grounds to exclude the accused’s criminal responsibility, since he had acted in the legitimate exercise of authority and in legitimate defense, without revealing an analysis of the proportionality of the means used. Even though, as has been verified (supra para. 147), there was no specific legal framework concerning the use of force, domestic law with regard to legitimate defense established in articles 65 and 66 of the Criminal Code the grounds for this exclusion of responsibility and its limits according to the proportionality used. 312 304 Cf. Case of the Barrios Family, supra, para. 49, and Case of Zambrano Vélez, supra, paras. 81, 83, 84, 86 and 88. 305 United Nations, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, adopted by General Assembly resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005, Article 3(b). 306 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia), supra, para. 82, and Case of Zambrano Vélez, supra, para. 89. Similarly Cf. ECHR, Case of Erdogan and Others v. Turkey, No. 19807/92. Judgment of 25 April 2006, para. 68; Case of Makaratzis v. Greece [GS], No. 50385/99. Judgment of 20 December 2004, para. 59, and Case of McCann and Others. v. The United Kingdom [GS], No. 18984/91. Judgment of 27 September 1995, para. 150. 307 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra, para. 166 and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places, supra, para. 257. 308 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 134 and Case of J., supra, para. 123. 309 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra, para. 222 and Case of the Barrios Family, supra, para. 181. 310 Cf. First instance judgment of the Second Court of the Transitory Procedural Regime, Judicial District of the state of Aragua, of October 13, 2000 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 9605). 311 Cf. Judgment of the Appellate Court of April 25, 2002 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 9673). 312 Cf. Article 65 of the Venezuelan Criminal Code establishes that the following shall “not be penalized: 1. Anyone who acts in compliance with a duty or in legitimate exercise of a right, authority, profession or position, without exceeding legal limits. […] 3. Anyone who acts in self-defense or in defense of a right, provided that this is in the following circumstances: (1) Unlawful attack by the victim of the act. (2) Necessity for the means used to prevent or repel the attack. (3) Lack of sufficient provocation by the person claiming to have acted in 66