30 However, in two of the cases, the gunshot wounds were to their backs. Those reports did not provide analysis of the distance or trajectory of the shots that impacted the victims or indicate whether the authorities had taken photos of the scene or of the wounds in the bodies. 119. Based on the preceding paragraphs, the IACHR notes that even though it cannot determine whether the troops were effectively able to see that there were persons traveling in the bed of the truck, it is evident from the context of the events, that the troops were aware of the high flow of Haitian migrants in trucks –and, specifically, that the yellow truck had been previously used to transport migrants– and that even having information that an attempt would be made to have a vehicle cross the border carrying drugs, they should have reasonably considered that it was possible or probable that the truck was carrying persons and not drugs. Moreover, the troops knew that at least the driver and the copilot were in the truck since they had seen them at the checkpoint when they signaled them to stop. 120. Even if the patrol members believed that the truck was carrying drugs or even arms, based on the information they had received that a smuggler’s vehicle would cross somewhere along that border that very night, the IACHR considers that element to be generic and that it does not support in any way the contention that, in the instant case, the use of force through firearms was strictly necessary or proportionate to the specific situation. Moreover, there are no elements in the case file beyond the testimony and the documents issued after the fact, to determine the source of that information or if it had been investigated and confirmed. 121. On the other hand, the Commission considers relevant to point out that: (i) at no time did the persons traveling in the yellow truck fired at or endangered the lives of the troops traveling in the patrol wagon; (ii) that the possibility that they may be trafficking in drugs did not imply a present and imminent danger to the patrol or to others; (iii) that the fact that the truck sped away did not imply a danger to the members of the patrol or to others because the pursuit was being carried out in the early morning hours on a deserted highway. 122. In that regard, the European Court has established that : The legitimate aim of effecting a lawful arrest can only justify putting human life at risk in circumstances of absolute necessity. The Court considers that in principle there can be no such necessity where it is known that the person to be arrested poses no threat to life or limb and is not suspected of having committed a violent offence, even if a failure to use lethal force may result in 147 the opportunity to arrest the fugitive being lost. 123. In that sense, the Commission recalls that the means of repression authorities may employ with regard to acts that could be considered violent or criminal and that could threaten the rights of the population are limited. In that regard, the Commission considers that, “independently of the seriousness of certain actions and the responsibility of those who perpetrate crimes, the State does not 148 have unlimited power nor can the State resort to any means to achieve its objectives.” 124. However, the IACHR notes that in the instant case, the members of the patrol fired on the truck without ever hitting the tires (which, the patrol members said, was their intention), endangering the lives of the persons in it. The IACHR notes that of the tens of shots fired, not one hit the truck’s tires. In that regard, the IACHR points out that the Attorney General of the Republic considered that the actions of the patrol members were, ”in every respect, unnecessary,” since “it would have been enough to shoot at the tires and not at the crew.”149 Furthermore, the Commission observes that upon seeing that a body was coming out of the passenger door, the patrol members could have reasonably inferred that the person had been injured by the bullets, but they nevertheless continued to pursue and to fire shots. In addition, 147 para. 95. 148 ECHR, Case of Nachova and others v. Bulgaria, Applications nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, Judgment of 6 July, 2005, IACHR, Report on citizen security and human rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II., Doc. 57, December 31, 2009, par. 114. Note sent on July 19, 2000, by the Attorney General of the Republic to the Secretary of State of the Armed Forces, State document dated September 20, 2010, Annex. 149