85. In order to respect the appropriate measures to take if the use of force becomes essential, this must be used in keeping with the principles of legality, absolute necessity, and proportionality: i. Legality: the use of force must be addressed at achieving a legitimate goal; in this case, stopping the vehicle that failed to obey an order to stop at a checkpoint. The law and training should established how to act in this situation,124 but this was not so in this case (supra para.79). ii. Absolute necessity: it must be verified whether other means are available to protect the life and safety of the person or situation that it is sought to protect, in keeping with the circumstances of the case.125 The European Court has indicated that it cannot be concluded that the requirement of “absolute necessity” for the use of force against people who do not pose a direct threat is proved, “even when the lack of the use of force would result in the loss of the opportunity to capture them.”126 Although, in theory, the events of this case could constitute the presumption of opposing resistance to authority and prevention of flight, the Court considers that, even when abstaining from the use of force would have allowed the individuals that were the subject of the State’s action to escape, the agents should not have used lethal force against people who did not represent a threat or a real or imminent danger to the agents or third parties. Consequently, in short, this event did not constitute a situation of absolute necessity. iii. Proportionality: The level of force used must be in keeping with the level of resistance offered.127 Thus, agents must apply the criteria of differentiated and progressive use of force, determining the degree of cooperation, resistance or violence of the subject against whom the intervention is intended and, on this basis, employ negotiating tactics, control or use of force, as required.128 86. In this case it has been established that, although the truck did not heed the authorities’ indications, which gave rise to a reckless pursuit, at no time was there any aggression or attack from the people in the truck. To the contrary, the agents fired high caliber weapons indiscriminately, causing injuries and deaths. Some witnesses even testified having heard cries for help, and it has been proved that a body fell from the moving vehicle, without any of this curbing the action of the soldiers (supra para. 44). 87. In this regard, the Court finds that proportionality is also related to the planning of preventive measures, since it involves an assessment of the reasonableness of the use of force. Thus, it is useful to analyze the facts rigorously to determine: (a) whether the violations could have been avoided with the implementation of less harmful measures, and (b) whether there was proportionality between the use of force and the harm it sought to prevent.129 88. In relation to the means used, the Court reiterates that States have an obligation to plan the actions taken by their agents adequately in order to minimize the use of force and the fatalities that may result from it (supra para. 81). In this regard, the Court observes 124 Cf. Principles on the Use of Force, Principles Nos. 1, 7, 8 and 11. 125 Cf. Principles on the Use of Force, Principle No. 4. 126 Cf. ECHR, Case of Kakoulli v. Turkey, supra, para. 108. 127 Cf. Principles on the Use of Force, Principles Nos. 5 and 9. 128 Cf. Principles on the Use of Force, Principles Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 9. 129 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Reten de Catia) v. Venezuela, supra, paras. 67 and 68. Similarly, see ECHR. McCann et al. v. United Kingdom, supra, para. 150, and Erdogan et al. v. Turkey, No. 19807/02. Fourth section. 13 September 2006, para. 68. 28