c) Extrajudicial executions 93. In addition, since State agents opened fire against people fleeing for their lives after the truck rolled over, the Court will examine the characteristics and consequences of the latter. 94. According to the autopsy performed on Pardis Fortilus and Roselene Therméus, they were shot in the chest, abdomen and back.136 This was also corroborated by the testimony of several witnesses, who stated that these women were shot as they fled (supra paras. 47 and 48). 95. In this regard, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has indicated that intentionality exists when there is some degree of premeditation in causing a death “to the extent that a decision is taken in advance that rules out the possibility of offering or accepting an opportunity to surrender rendering such operations unlawful.”137 In other words, it can be concluded from the actions taken by the agents that the people were not allowed to surrender or, if appropriate, that gradual measures were taken to achieve their detention; rather, to the contrary, the agents proceeded to use lethal weapons that killed them. 96. The Court considers that, in this case, the action taken by the State with regard to the two people who were fleeing reveals that extrajudicial executions were committed, owing to the deliberate use of lethal weapons with the intention of depriving them of life, especially given their situation of defenseless, and without them representing any threat. 97. Based on the above, the Court concludes that, owing to the unlawful, unnecessary, and disproportionate use of force, the State violated the right to life established in Article 4(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, in its dimension of respect, based on the arbitrary deprivation of life of Fritz Alce, Ilflaudia Dorzema, Nadege Dorzema, Jacqueline Maxime and Máximo Rubén de Jesús Espinal. Also, the Court finds the State responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Pardis Fortilus and Roselene Therméus, in violation of the same articles. d) Harm to the personal integrity of the survivors 98. Similarly, the Court finds that, owing to the deployment of unlawful, unnecessary, and disproportionate use of force, at least five other survivors were injured by bullets during the events, namely: Noclair Florvilien, Joseph Desvraine, Sylvie Felizor, Michel Françoise and Sonide Nora. In addition, at least five people were injured as a result of the traffic accident, namely: Rose-Marie Petit-Home, Joseph Pierre, Renaud Tima, Selafoi Pierre and Josier Maxime. According to medical certificates the said victims also suffered harm to their mental and physical integrity owing to what happened (supra para. 51). Moreover, Honorio Winique and Alphonse Oremis also survived the pursuit and the traffic accident. 138 Therefore, the Court finds the State responsible for the violation of the obligation to respect the right to personal integrity established in Article 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. In addition, even though it was aware of the situation, the State did not individualize the injured persons in the investigation, so that these facts have remained 136 Cf. Preliminary autopsy reports of the Regional Forensic Pathology Institute of June 20, 2000, supra, folios 1600 to 1613. 137 Cf. Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. UN Doc. A/66/330. 30 August 2011, paras. 66 and 67. 138 Cf. Merits file, folio 925. 30