26 With regard to the persons executed and their relatives, as well as the survivors 123 124 1. Right to Life (Article 4 ) and to Personal Integrity (Article 5 ) in connection with the Obligation to Respect those Rights (Article 1(1)) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 105. With regard to the right to life, the Commission recalls: Article 4 of the Convention guarantees the right of every human being to not be deprived of his life arbitrarily, which includes the need that the State to adopt substantive measures to prevent the violation of this right, as would be the case of all measures necessary to prevent arbitrary killings by its own security forces, as well as to prevent and punish the deprivation of life as a consequence of 125 criminal acts carried out by individual third parties. 106. The Inter-American Court has maintained that the States have the right and the obligation 126 to guarantee the security of its citizens and keep the peace, resorting to the use of force if necessary. Along those lines, the IACHR recalls that “the responsibilities of the armed forces [are limited] to the 127 defense of national sovereignty.” In that regard, the IACHR considers that the States have the power to defend their borders, and to do so, they could, under certain circumstances, rely on the armed forces as long as “the use remains within the established limits and follows the procedures that help preserve both 128 citizen security and the fundamental rights of every human being. ” 107. Following the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court, although government agents may legitimately use lethal force in the performance of their duties, its use should be the exception and it should be planned and limited by authorities in proportion to the threat, in order that “force or coercive 129 tactics are used only after all other means of control have been exhausted or failed.” 108. Thus, the Inter-American Court has established that the use of force must be the exception, and it must be planned and limited in proportion to the threat by the authorities. According to the Court, the use of lethal force and firearms by state security agents against persons must be even more restricted and, as a general rule, it should be prohibited. The exceptions that define the circumstances under which the use of force is considered legitimate should be established by law and should be strictly interpreted in order to always minimize its use, and should never exceed “what is 130 absolutely necessary” in relation to the force or threat it is intended to repel. Whenever excessive force 131 is used, all resulting deprivation of life is arbitrary. 123 Article 4(1). Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law, and in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 124 Article 5. 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture of to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 125 IA Court H.R., Case Servellón García et al. Judgment dated September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, par. 98; IA Court H.R., Case Montero Aranguren et al (Retén de Catia). Judgment dated July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, par. 64; IA Court H.R., Case Ximenes Lopes Vs. Brasil. Preliminary Exception. Judgment dated November 30, 2005. Series C No. 139, par. 125; and IA Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres. Judgment dated July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, par. 131. 126 IA Court H.R., Case Servellón García et al. Judgment dated September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152; IA Court H.R. Case Montero Aranguren et al (Retén de Catia). Judgment dated July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150; 127 IACHR, Report on citizen security and human rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II., Doc. 57, December 31, 2009, par. 102. 128 IA Court H.R., Case Bulacio. 129 IA Court H.R., Case Zambrano Vélez et al Vs. Ecuador. Fondo, Reparations and Costs. Judgment dated July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 83; and IA Court H.R., Case Montero Aranguren et al (Retén de Catia). Judgment dated July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, par. 67. See also, ECHR, Case of Nachova and others v. Bulgaria, Applications nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, Judgment of 6 July, 2005, para. 94. 130 IA Court H.R., Case Montero Aranguren et al (Retén de Catia), Judgment dated July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150. Par. 68. In the same sense see. ECHR, Huohvanainen v. Finland, 13 March 2007, no. 57389/00, pars. 93-94,; ECHR, Erdogan and Others v. Turkey, 25 April 2006, no. 19807/92, par. 67; ECHR, Kakoulli v. Turkey, 22 November 2005, no. 38595/97, par. 107-108; ECHR, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, par. 148-150, 194, and the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, resolution 34/169, of December 17, 1979, Article 3. 131 IA Court H.R., Case Montero Aranguren et al (Retén de Catia), Judgment dated July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150. Par. 68. In the same sense also see Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the Continúa…