this, employ tactics of negotiation, control, or use of force, as best corresponds.98 To determine the proportionality of the use of force, the seriousness of the situation faced by the official must be evaluated. To do this, among other circumstances, the following must be considered: the intensity and dangerousness of the threat; the individual's way of proceeding; the environmental conditions, and the means available to the official to deal with a specific situation.99 106. Case law has also indicated that law enforcement officials must identify themselves as such and, where appropriate, give a clear warning of their intention to use firearms. This is particularly necessary during such operations and, especially, in situations that by their nature endanger the fundamental rights of people. 100 B.1.1. Analysis of the instant case 107. In the instant case, the Court highlights the disparity of existing versions regarding what happened on December 8, 1999. The Casierra Quiñonez brothers and their companions have maintained that on that day they were not carrying weapons and that the boat in which the agents who carried out the military operation were driving approached at high speed, without identifying themselves, flashing lights or any sign that would make it possible to determine that they were authorities of the public force. As they stated, thinking that they were "pirates,” they chose to flee, before which the marines fired and ended up hitting the engine, causing the boat to stop, resulting in death and injuries caused to the alleged victims (supra paras. 54 to 56). 108. Meanwhile, the soldiers and the helmsman who accompanied them have indicated that, as part of the operation carried out, at first they were attacked with firearms by people who were driving in a boat. In response, they repelled the attack, but they failed to arrest the boat. At a second moment in time, approximately three hours later, they identified two boats, the crews of which had also allegedly used firearms against them, and when chasing one of such boats, to arrest its occupants, the soldiers fired in the direction of the boat's engine. As a consequence, one of the fishermen died and two others were injured. The marines indicated that in their actions, they first identified themselves as members of the National Navy, turned on the lights and the siren, and fired shots into the air (supra paras. 61 and 62). 109. In addition to the above, according to both versions, the events occurred on the "high seas" or open waters, at night, and in precarious visibility conditions (supra paras. 55 and 62). 110. Notwithstanding the specific contradictions and omissions that could be noted in the different statements and in the accounts pertaining to both versions, the Court notes the serious existing evidentiary limitations, which was admitted by the State, which stated, inter alia, that it was not possible to establish that shots had been fired from the boat in which the alleged victims were traveling and that no firearms were found in the possession of the latter (supra para 100). Added to this is the fact that, from the investigations carried out in the Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 85, and Case of Roche Azaña et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 53, and Case of Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 92. See also, Basic Principles on the Use of Force, supra, Principles No. 2, 4, 5 and 9. 99 Cf. Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. Venezuela, supra, para. 136, and Case of Roche Azaña et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 53, and Case of Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 92. 100 Cf. Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. Venezuela, supra, para. 135. Principle 10 of Basic principles on the use of force, supra, indicates: [L], law enforcement officials shall identify themselves as such and give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms, with sufficient time for the warning to be observed, unless to do so would unduly place the law enforcement officials at risk or would create a risk of death or serious harm to other persons, or would be clearly inappropriate or pointless in the circumstances of the incident. 98 26