and assess the statements of two witnesses who indicated that Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto was already covered in mud and that he was taken to a hospital immediately. 69 It argued that the Commission had not mentioned or assessed a series of statements by Robert’s family members and friends according to which, on the day of the confrontation, he was “hunting iguanas in the hills near a canal in La Segundera.” A.3. Article 2 of the American Convention 59. The representatives argued that Article 2 of the Convention had also been violated. In the case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, the Court had noted that, at the time of those facts, Venezuela did not have laws establishing the parameters for the use of force by State agents. Therefore, the State was allegedly responsible for a violation of Article 2 of the American Convention insofar as, at the time of the events, it had not adapted its domestic laws to the relevant international standards. 60. The Commission did not present arguments on this point. 61. The State indicated that, the Regulations to the Code of Conduct of Members of the Police Forces that regulated the legitimate use of police force had been in effect since October 14, 1993. B. Considerations of the Court 62. The Court will now examine the arguments of the parties and of the Commission in the following order: (a) Right to life of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez; (b) Rights to personal integrity and personal liberty of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, and (c) Obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions. B.1. Right to life of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez 63. The Court has recognized that States are obliged to guarantee security and maintain public order within their territory and, therefore, they have the legitimate right to use force to re-establish these if necessary. However, although state agents may resort to the use of force and, in some circumstances, even lethal force, the State does not have unlimited power to achieve its objectives, regardless of the seriousness of certain acts and the culpability of the perpetrators.70 The Court has had recourse to various relevant international instruments and, in particular, to the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials,71 and the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials,72 to provide content to the objects that, in some way justifiably suggest that he is the perpetrator, shall also be considered flagrante delicto […].” It added that R.D.P. (victim of the alleged robbery), who accompanied the police officers, was an eyewitness to the confrontation, and also to Robert’s transfer to the health center. This witness stated that Robert was taken directly from the scene of the confrontation to the health center; that he was with him during the whole trajectory and that, during this, he was not taken to any place other than the health center. The Commission had not mentioned or assessed the statements of T.A., an eyewitness, who stated that there had been a confrontation initiated by the alleged victims and that Robert Díaz Loreto was covered in mud when he entered the police vehicle. 69 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 154, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 371, para. 159. 70 Cf. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (hereinafter, “Basic Principles on the Use of Force”), adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, August 27 to September 7, 1990. 71 Cf. Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly by Resolution 34/169 of December 17, 1979. 72 -20-