189. With regard to this obligation to protect the right to life, the European Court of Human Rights has held that it is necessary to examine must examine “not only whether the use of potentially lethal force against the applicant was legitimate but also whether the operation was regulated and organised in such a way as to minimise to the greatest extent possible any risk to his life.” 161 With respect to this obligation, the Commission notes that according to the case law of the European Court that persons who are in a vulnerable addition vis-à-vis the state authorities are entitled to the latter's protection and it has emphasized that there are "general measures and precautions which will be available to diminish the opportunities for self-harm, without infringing on personal autonomy” and that such measures will depend on the circumstances of the case.162Thus, as the European Court has stipulated, the right to life not only enjoins the State to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but “also extends in appropriate circumstances to a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk.” 163 190. On this point, the Commission notes that in Abdullah Yilmaz v. Turkey, the European Court took cognizance of the situation of a recruit, who, after having had a disagreement with one of his superiors, appeared with a rifle in a state of anxiety. In this situation of rebellion against a sergeant, he threatened to commit suicide. Fearing that Mr. Yilmaz might attack him, one of the sergeants seized an assault rifle and pointed it at him, whereupon Mr. Yilmaz committed suicide. In that case, the Court found that the State had "a fundamental duty to establish a legislative and administrative framework for effective prevention” and held that while it was not possible to analyze the seriousness and the nature of the psychological process that these actions might have caused in the victim, it was clear that this process became irreversible as a result of one final irresponsible act committed by his sergeant and the failure to adopt measures to protect his life. 164 191. In the present case, the Commission notes that even if the suicide hypothesis is accepted, the fear caused by the pursuit in which two policemen were firing into the air behind him, one of them armed with a rifle, as well as the continuous shooting at the small and confined space in which he was sheltering, with bullets striking and breaking windows and parts of the masonry, could be analyzed in the light of the aforementioned standards. In other words, accepting the suicide theory, the use of lethal force in the minutes prior to his death has special relevance in the analysis of the possible imputation of international responsibility, even if this hypothesis were true. 192. In view of the aforementioned aspects, the Commission finds that precisely because of the absence of rules on modulation of the use of lethal force, the sequence of events verified in the framework of the operation to “locate” Mr. Valencia from its beginning to its conclusion, resulted in an intentional use of force that might reasonably be inferred to have exacerbated his likely mental state. Faced with this situation, the Commission observes that according to the testimonies of the police, Mr. Valencia Hinojosa himself announced that he believed that death was his only option as a way out of his place of refuge, when he said that “the only way they would get him out of there was dead.” Despite that warning, the use of force was not modulated, nor were other means of containment used as a way of protecting the life of Mr. Valencia Hinojosa in accordance with the above-described standards. 193. In light of the foregoing, the Commission finds it sufficiently proven that the policemen, having no regulatory framework on the use of force in police operations on which to rely, employed lethal force in an unnecessary and disproportionate way throughout the various stages of the operation. Likewise, the Commission considers it sufficiently proven that, even though a situation of risk existed to the life of Mr. Valencia Hinojosa in light of the fear inspired by the shooting and his own warning, the state agents did not adopt the necessary measures to protect him; on the contrary, they continued to use lethal force. 161ECHR, Case of Makaratzis v. Greece. Application No. 50385/99/95, 20 December 2004, § 60. 162ECHR, Case Keenan v. The United Kingdom. Application No. 27229/95, 3 April 2001, § 92. 163ECHR, Case Keenan v. The United Kingdom. Application No. 27229/95, 3 April 2001, § 92. 164ECHR, Case of Abdullah Yilmaz v. Turkey. Application No. 21899/02 , 17 June 2008, § 66. (Free translation)