80. On November 20, 2006, Oscar Tassino's next-of-kin again requested the Tenth First Instance Criminal Court to investigate the disappearance of the alleged victim, arguing that no light had been thrown on what happened either in the Peace Commission's report or in the Report on the Ultimate Fate of 33 Missing persons, because they contradict one another as well as the information provided by the Government regarding what happened to Oscar Tassino at the moment of his disappearance.97 On March 27, 2003, that Court turned down the request for investigation.98 On July 21, 2007, the same Court received a request to revert the archiving of the case and to issue the testimony of all proceedings undertaken in connection with it.99 The Commission does not have the reply to that request. IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Right to life (Article I of the American Declaration100) in connection with the death of Laura Raggio, Silvia Reyes y Diana Maidanik 81. The IACHR recalls that the right to life established in Article I of the American Declaration encompasses the ban on arbitrary deprivation of life relating to lethal use of force by State agents. The Commission has pointed out that, in its law enforcement initiatives, the State must not use force against individuals who have been apprehended by authorities, have surrendered, or who are wounded and abstain from hostile acts. The use of lethal force in such a manner would constitute extra-judicial killings in flagrant violation of Article 4 of the Convention and Article I of the Declaration.101 82. The Inter-American Court has held that “whenever the use of force by state agents results in the death or injuries to one or more individuals, the State has the obligation to give a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events and to rebut allegations over its liability, through appropriate evidentiary elements.”102 83. As the Inter-American Court has point out, for an explanation for the use of lethal force to be considered satisfactory, it must be the result of an investigation that is compatible with the guarantees of independence, impartiality, and due diligence; moreover, it must address all the elements that, according to inter-American case law, have to be present in order to justify such use of force, which are, specifically, legitimate purpose, absolute necessity, and proportionality.103 84. In the same vein, the Commission notes that the United Nations’ Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms allow law enforcement officials to use firearms “to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority.”104 That notwithstanding, as part of the requirements for use of force to be permissible under that hypothetical circumstance, the Principles say that: (i) [use of] it may be made only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives; (ii) it “may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life”; (iii) law enforcement officials must give a “clear warning of their intent to use firearms”; and (iv) said warning must be given with sufficient time, unless to do so would endanger the law enforcement officials or other persons.105 Appendix 3.14. Request by the next-of-kin of Oscar Tassino to the Tenth First Instance Criminal Court to investigate the facts surrounding his disappearance. Attached to the petitioner's brief of August 15, 2007. 98 Appendix 3.15. Rejection by the Tenth First Instance Criminal Court of the request for investigation into the disappearance of Oscar Tassino Asteazuz. Attached to the petitioner's brief of August 15, 2007. 99 Appendix 3.16. Request by Oscar Tassino's next-of-kind for a reversal of the archiving of the case. Attached to the petitioner's brief of August 15, 2007. 100 Article I of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man provides: “Every human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person.” 101 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev.1 corr., October 22, 2002, par. 91 102 I/A Court HR. Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166. Par. 108; Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 17, 2015. Series C No. 292, par. 291; and Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281. Par. 132. 103 I/A Court HR. Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, par. 134. 104 Principles 9 AND 10 of the United Nations’ Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms, adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990. 105 I/A Court HR. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012, Series C No. 251, par. 85. 97 16