VII-1 RIGHTS TO LIFE AND TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY 67. In this chapter, the Court will examine the facts of the case in light of the rights to life and to personal integrity, related to the obligation to respect and guarantee rights without discrimination, taking into consideration the standards on the use of force that apply in this case and the measures taken after the incident that could have violated the personal integrity of the presumed victims. A. Arguments 68. The Commission argued that members of the armed forces can use force legitimately in the exercise of their functions, but the use of force “must be exceptional, […] planned and limited proportionally […] so that they will only use [it] when all other means of control have been exhausted and have failed.” Thus, the agents of the Dominican armed forces used excessive force in the events that occurred on June 18, 2000, that are the subject of the instant case, because: (i) the people in the truck never fired at or endangered the life of those who were in the patrol vehicle; (ii) the fact that the truck fled at high speed did not endanger the life of the members of the patrol or of third parties; (iii) the possibility that they were trafficking drugs and not persons did not entail an actual and imminent danger for the patrol or for third parties; (iv) all the bullet holes were found in the rear part of the truck and none in the tires, and (v) four people died from the shots fired at the truck, one when the truck turned over, and two were shot in the back.” 69. The Commission also underlined that, “historically the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic has been and still is a crossing place for a significant flow of Haitian migrants in search of work and the Dominican authorities are aware of this practice.” The State was also aware that the truck used to transport the Haitians was utilized for this type of activity, because it had been stopped previously. For this reason, the agents should have considered that it was a reasonable possibility that the truck was transporting people and not drugs. 70. The Commission also argued that “the situation of fear and risk to life endured by the survivors of the events and those who were detained also applies to those who lost their life, [in violation] of the obligation to respect and guarantee their personal integrity, […] owing to the fear it is reasonable to consider they felt during the pursuit, the gunshots, the extrajudicial executions, and the serious injuries caused to several of their companions […] and owing to the wounds they suffered.” It added that the State also failed to comply with its obligation to guarantee these rights by not carrying out a serious and diligent investigation to clarify what had happened. 71. Furthermore, the Commission argued that the personal integrity of the survivors had been violated owing to the failure to return the remains of the deceased to their next of kin which caused them additional suffering and anguish. This also derived from the fear the survivors felt after the pursuit and gunshots and from having been obliged to transport the bodies of the dead and seriously wounded, as well as from having been arrested by State agents without knowing their fate, being taken to two detention centers without being informed of their rights, being threatened with forced labor, and without being provided with judicial guarantees. 72. The representatives endorsed the Commission's arguments and added that the soldiers could have known that the truck was carrying people, because they had seen them when the tarpaulin that covered them broke free and, according to the testimony of local residents, screams could be heard coming from the truck. The representatives added that “the State should have acted with greater prudence when executing the operation and when 24