arguments aimed at demonstrating that there was an investigation, trial, and punishment of those allegedly responsible for the international crime, so it is inadmissible to claim the application of the principle of complementarity in order to prevent the Court from ruling on the merits of the alleged offenses. In any case, the arguments put forth by the State will be studied when deciding what is pertinent with respect to the claims of the Commission and the representatives regarding reparations. VIII.1 RIGHTS TO LIFE AND HUMANE TREATMENT, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS AND TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LAW PROVISIONS89AND ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY 90 94. The Court will proceed to study the various issues raised by the Commission and the parties in relation to the specific rights that were allegedly violated on occasion of the events that occurred on December 8, 1999. A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission A.1. Rights to life and humane treatment 95. The Commission argued that the State “did not provide a satisfactory explanation” for the death of Luis Eduardo Casierra Quiñonez and the injuries caused to his brother Andrés Alejandro, “that would have resulted from an independent, impartial, and due diligence investigation.” However, elements can be identified in the file that confirm that the use of lethal force was incompatible with the international obligations of the State. This is given that the weapons that the alleged victims allegedly used to attack the boat in which the marines were traveling were neither seized nor located. Given this, the only basis to maintain that an attack was first perpetrated were the statements of the military personnel and the helmsman, as well as the existence of holes in the boat they used, without an assessment of the type of weapon or the age of the impacts. 96. As to the legitimate purpose and absolute necessity, it argued that, although the State maintained that the agents fired shots at the engine of the boat of the alleged victims while they were fleeing, the shots were directed towards the upper part of the boat, "impacting the people who were inside." In any case, escape “can never be considered a basis for the legitimate purpose and strict necessity for the use of lethal force, unless […] the life of someone is in danger.” As to proportionality, based on the visual inspection of the boat of the alleged victims, it was found that “it had a total of [forty-nine] holes […] due to the use of firearms,” which “indicates a disproportionate use of lethal force.” It concluded that Ecuador is internationally responsible for violation of articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in article 1(1) of the same instrument. 97. The representatives indicated that the violation of the right to life to the detriment of Luis Eduardo Casierra Quiñonez derived from the lack of “minimum conditions necessary to prevent the National Navy, through its marines, from being the perpetrators of an unnecessary, disproportionate and therefore arbitrary abuse of lethal force.” They added that, in addition to the "extrajudicial execution" of Luis Eduardo, his brothers Sebastián Darlin and Andrés Alejandro suffered "severe injuries" as a result of the events. 98. The State indicated that it “recognizes that state agents caused the death of Luis Casierra and affected the integrity of Andrés and Sebastián Casierra.” However, it argued that “no international responsibility is established,” because “at the time of the events […], as it is 89 90 Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention, in relation to articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument. Article 21 of the American Convention. 23