State itself that concluded that no weapons were found in the possession of the Casierra Quiñonez brothers and their companions, nor was it possible to prove that shots had been fired from the boat in which they were traveling, since it was impossible to establish whether the three bullet impacts to hull of the boat used by the Naval officers had the caliber or whether they were old or recent. Given that there were no seized weapons, it cannot be proven that the military personnel were under attack and that the use of lethal force was necessary in these circumstances. Taking into account the existing evidentiary limitations and in the absence of a satisfactory and convincing explanation by the domestic authorities about what happened, the Court takes into account the statements of the marines, rendered in the context of the investigation started based on the facts. It is noteworthy that none of the soldiers reported having found weapons on the fishermen's boat and that one of them, when specifically questioned on the matter, confirmed that they were not found. As a result, it cannot be proven that the physical integrity of the Marines was in danger. Notwithstanding analysis that will be carried out regarding the intervention of the military criminal jurisdiction, it should be noted that the military judicial authority reached the same conclusion within the framework of the process initiated for this purpose.117 (supra para 86). 121. As to the objective of "neutralizing," the Court finds that, although it is a legitimate aim to try to stop the vessel to apprehend its occupants on the suspicion that it could have been the pirate boat they were looking for (as proven by the documents and testimonies rendered), the use of lethal weapons by agents of the State security forces is disproportionate in circumstances that may unnecessarily put the life and physical integrity of people at risk. Thus, when the objective is to neutralize or stop, it is appropriate to use less grievous mechanisms, including issuing a warning and trying to persuade the occupants of the other vessel to stop, continuing the pursuit until catching up with them, or requesting the support of other public forces units. To perform such actions, a communication device was included among the equipment provided to carry out the operation (supra para 50). Likewise, regarding the element of absolute necessity that requires verifying whether there are other less harmful means available to protect the life and integrity of the person or the situation that is intended to be protected, in accordance with the circumstances of the case, the use of firearms was unnecessary and disproportionate. Meanwhile, the use of other available, less grievous means were justified to protect the rights at stake, especially taking into account the parameter that requires a greater degree of exceptionality in the use of lethal force and firearms by state security agents against people, particularly military personnel, against civilians, something that should be prohibited as a general rule. 122. This has been the Court's logic in its analysis of the requirement of absolute necessity and proportionality in the use of force, indicating that it is also the duty of the State to "provide less extreme measures" to achieve the objectives outlined in the field of security and public order, which requires, for the implementation of operations such as the one carried out in this case, that there be prior planning, training, and organization, precisely in order to avoid disproportionate actions by its agents.118 The Law Judge of the Third Naval Zone concluded, inter alia: [D]ue to the persistent disobedience by the crew members of the [R]odach vessel, which did not stop, the military used weapons to neutralize the means of propulsion of said vessel, which rules out the members of the military patrol to having any motivation to intentionally victimize or injure the escaping crew members […]. Cf. Decision issued by the Law Judge of the Third Naval Zone on May 24, 2000 (evidence file, volume I, annex 4 to the Merits Report, folio 98). 118 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 89, and Case of Roche Azaña et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 68. On this matter, the Human Rights Committee has noted the following: States […] are expected to take all necessary measures to prevent the arbitrary deprivation of life by law enforcement officials, including soldiers on law enforcement missions. These measures include […] procedures designed to ensure that the actions of law enforcement are properly planned in accordance with the need to minimize the risk they pose to human life […]. 117 30