123. Consequently, in this case, given to the comparison between the situation faced by the agents and the extent of the response required, the Court notes that the elements of absolute necessity and proportionality of the test mentioned supra are not satisfied, meaning that there was an unnecessary and disproportionate use of lethal force. Indeed, the domestic investigations carried out reveal that at least forty-nine impacts from firearm projectiles had been verified in the boat occupied by the alleged victims and that, while it is true that a considerable number of bullets that impacted the boat are located in the engine area (twentysix), what can be inferred from that evidence and from the testimonies given by the marines and the civilian helmsman of the boat, is that the intention was to stop the boat and not cause the death of its occupants, the truth is that, in conditions of absolute darkness (approximately 1:30 a.m. in "waning moon") and adverse weather conditions (extremely choppy seas), a boat moving in pursuit, at maximum speed and at a certain distance between the moving boats, it was foreseeable that several of the bullets would hit other areas of the boat creating a danger of injury and death for its occupants, which was exactly what happened. Such a high number of bullet impacts (forty-nine) is not justified to “neutralize” the vessel being persecuted, nor to shoot in the indicated conditions, without unnecessarily putting the physical integrity and life of its occupants at risk. Also, the number of bullet impacts does not coincide with the testimonies of the naval officers and the civilian helmsman who was driving the boat, since the former said that they had fired between five and six shots, while the helmsman indicated that approximately ten shots were fired, establishing a significant difference between what was said and the physical evidence of the bullet impacts on the boat, which add up to at least forty-nine. At the same time, the version of the fishermen from the “Rodach” boat is consistent and does not reflect substantial differences between the versions of the testimonies given. 124. That said, the Court emphasizes that, according to declarations by the Casierra Quiñonez brothers and their companions, the boat in which the marines were traveling lacked identification, lights, or any sign that would make it possible to understand that they were armed forces of the military. To that effect, it is an established fact that the marines traveled in a boat that did not belong to the military institution,119 but rather to the “Civil Defense” (supra para 50), which reflects a lack of appropriate planning and organization in order to effectively achieve the objectives of the operation without the associated risks (supra para 122) and that would make it possible to adequately identify the boat as belonging to government authorities. 125. The number of shots fired by the agents, under the conditions indicated, the lack of visibility due to the weather conditions that day, including rough seas, movement, and for purposes of arrest, as well as the possibility of having used less grievous means to the rights at stake, makes the use of firearms disproportionate in the circumstances indicated. 126. In short, in this case the legality, absolute necessity, and proportionality in the use of lethal force by the marines were not proven, without the State having provided a satisfactory and convincing explanation of what happened. The resulting situation was the outcome of the excessive use of lethal force by state agents. To this effect, as the Court has pointed out, when excessive force is used, any resulting deprivation of life is arbitrary, 120 which is equally applicable in the case of violations of the right to personal integrity due to injuries caused in the same context. Cf. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36, Article 6: right to life, September 3, 2019, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36, par. 13. See also, ECHR, Case of McCann et al. v. United Kingdom [GS], No. 18984/91, Judgment of September 27, 1995, paras. 202 et seg. 119 Mr. Andrés Alejandro Casierra Quiñonez agreed on this fact. Cf. Testimony by Andrés Alejandro Casierra Quiñonez, given at a public hearing before this Court. 120 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 68, and Case of Olivares Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 109. 31