27 109. In that regard, the IACHR has determined that state agents may use lethal force “in cases where it is inevitable in order to protect themselves or others from an imminent threat of death or serious injury, or when it is impossible to maintain law and order by any other means and it is strictly necessary 132 and proportionate.” The use of force, including lethal force, will only be lawful when non violent means 133 are manifestly incapable of protecting the threatened rights. 110. For its part, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the European Court”) has considered that the term “absolutely necessary” with regard to the use of lethal force, indicates that a stricter and more convincing test of necessity must be used than that applicable when determining whether State action is necessary in a democratic society. Consequently, the degree of force used must be strictly proportional in order to achieve the objective allowed. 134 111. Thus, when it is alleged that a death has occurred as a result of excessive use of force, the Inter-American Court has established clear rules with regard to the burden of proof. In the Court’s words: […] whenever the use of force [by state agents] results in the death or injuries to one or more individuals, the State has the obligation to give a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the 135 events and to rebut allegations over its liability , through appropriate evidentiary elements. 112. In this same sense, Article 3 of the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials establishes that: “Law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to 136 the extent required for the performance of their duty” ; and Principle 4 of the “Basic Principles on the 137 Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials” states that: “ Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. They may use force and firearms only if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result.” 113. Consequently, the law must establish when state security agents may resort to lethal force, restricting its use to only when it is absolutely necessary in relation to the force or threat it is 138 intended to repel. In short, “State agents must distinguish between persons who, by their actions, …continuación Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, La Habana, Cuba, August 27 to September 7, 1990, Principle 9. Also see, IACHR, Report on citizen security and human rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II., Doc. 57, December 31, 2009, par. 107. 132 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, paragraph 87. IACHR, Report on citizen security and human rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II., Doc. 57, December 31, 2009, par. 113. 133 IACHR, Report on citizen security and human rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II., Doc. 57, December 31, 2009, par. 117. 134 ECHR, Case of Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia, Applications nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, Judgment of 24 February, 2005, para. 169. 135 IA Court H.R., Case Zambrano Vélez et al Vs. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment dated July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166. Par. 108; IA Court H.R., Case Montero Aranguren et al (Retén de Catia), Judgment dated July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150. Par. 80; IA Court H.R., Case Baldeón García. Judgment dated April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147. Par. 120. 136 UN Doc. A/34/46 (1979), A.G. res. 34/169. 137 Adopted by the Eighth Congress of the United Nations on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Havana (Cuba), on August 27 to September 7, 1990. 138 IA Court H.R., Case Zambrano Vélez et al vs. Ecuador Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment dated July 4, 2007 Series C No. 166, par. 84; IA Court H.R., Case Montero Aranguren et al (Retén de Catia). Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, par. 68. In that regard, also 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, paragraphs. 107-108; ECHR, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, paragraphs. 148-150, 194, and Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, resolution 34/169, of December 17, 1979, article 3; In accordance with Principle 11 of the “Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by law Enforcement Officials," adopted by the Eighth Congress of the United Nations on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, held in Havana, (Cuba), August 27 to September 7, 1990, the rules and regulations on the use of firearms by law enforcement officials must include clear guidelines that ( a ) Specify the circumstances under which law enforcement officials are authorized to carry firearms and prescribe the types of firearms and ammunition permitted; ( b ) Ensure that firearms are used only in appropriate circumstances and in a manner likely to decrease the risk of unnecessary harm; ( c ) Prohibit the use of those firearms and ammunition that cause unwarranted injury or present an unwarranted risk; ( d ) Regulate the Continúa…