Lack of a satisfactory explanation for the use of live rounds in the exercise and failure to implement safety measures 196. In the context of the instant case, the parents have repeatedly contended that the use of live rounds in the exercise and the lack of appropriate safety measures and medical care are among the serious irregularities committed during the exercise in which their son was wounded, and that the Venezuelan State has not provided a reasonable explanation for these circumstances. The Commission has already established that the domestic criminal proceedings did not pursue lines of investigation to elucidate the why or reasons for the decision to use live rounds in the “rabbit hole” obstacle, when that decision was made, whether that decision was made by an officer with the authority to do so, and why extreme safety measures, including the presence of medical staff and an ambulance, had not been implemented. 197. In this regard, in the military context and situation of young recruits, the European Court has established as a general principle, that under certain circumstances, the State has a positive duty to adopt appropriate prevention measures to protect the life of the soldiers. It should therefore have a sufficient legal framework that recognizes and effectively guarantees protection of this right for persons who may be exposed to certain risks inherent to military life.264 Furthermore, when there is an allegation that the military authorities have failed in their obligation to protect the life of individuals under their jurisdiction, the analysis of the European Court has focused on determining whether the authorities knew or should reasonably have known that there was a real and present risk to the life of the individual in danger and, if so, whether they had implemented the safety measures necessary to protect this right.265 198. For example, in Perevedentsevy v. Russia, the European Court analyzed the situation of a 19-year old youth who was doing his compulsory military service and was found dead, allegedly by suicide. His parents contended, however, that the victim had been subjected to bullying by other, higher-ranking military personnel and that this situation was directly related to his death. In that case, the European Court examined the responsibility of military commanders to monitor all aspects of the living and working dynamics of the group under their supervision, including the physical and psychological well-being of every soldier. The Court determined that, having had knowledge of a situation involving illegal action and certain abuses by other military personnel, the authorities had failed to ascertain whether the victim was in a situation that posed a risk to his life and to take appropriate steps to prevent that risk from materializing.266 199. These standards have been included in the Council of Europe’s Recommendations on the human rights of members of the Armed Forces,267 which establish as a general principle that, notwithstanding the characteristics inherent to military life, members of the Armed Forces, whatever their status in the institution, must be guaranteed the rights recognized in international treaties for the protection of human rights.268 Concerning the right to life, the recognized standard in international law is that while members of the armed forces run a particular risk of death during “dangerous operations,” that exposure should have a clear and legitimate military purpose.269 From this derives the specific obligation of military authorities to put 264 ECHR, Case of Ataman v. Turkey, Judgment of April 27, 2006, Par. 54; ECHR, Case of Kilinç and Others v. Turkey, Judgment of June 7, 2005, Par. 40. 265 ECHR, Case of Osman v. United Kingdom, Judgment of October 28, 1998, Par. 115. 266 ECHR, Case of Perevedentsevy v. Russia. Application no. 39583/05, April 24, 2014 §XX. 267 Based on international instruments for the protection of human rights such as the European Convention on Human Rights; the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights; the European Commission on Human Rights; and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; Council of Europe. Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs. Human rights of members of the Armed Forces. Recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 4 and explanatory memorandum. Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on February 24, 2010 at the 1077th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies. 268 Council of Europe. Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs. Human rights of members of the Armed Forces. Recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 4 and explanatory memorandum. Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on February 24, 2010 at the 1077th meeting of Ministers’ Deputies. General Principle No. 2. 269 Council of Europe. Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs. Human rights of members of the Armed Forces. Recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 4 and explanatory memorandum. Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on February 24, 2010 at the 1077th meeting of Ministers’ Deputies, pg. 26.