according the official version itself, after mortally wounding Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, the police continued with an illegitimate operation, as explained above. 99. On this point, the Commission emphasizes its holding in the case of Valencia Hinojosa vs. Ecuador to the effect that moderation in the use of force must always be adjusted during an operation to differences in specific circumstances in each particular case and respect the criteria of necessity and proportionality and, this way, the use of force against persons who don’t represent a danger is not considered authorized “even when the failure to use force results in the loss of the opportunity to capture.”106 Regarding this obligation to protect the right to life, the European Court of Human Rights has held that it must be assessed “not only whether the potential use of lethal force against the applicant was legitimate, but also whether the operation was regulated and organized in such a way to minimize to the extent possible any risk to life.”107 100. Based on the statements thus far, the Commission established that even accepting the version of the police officers, the death of the three members of the family took place in the context of a police operation jeopardized the right to life, not only because it pursued inconventional purposes, as examined above, but because at the time of launching the operation, there was not an imminent threat to persons, the only hypothesis that could justify said use of force. 101. Based on the foregoing considerations thus far, the Commission concludes that the Venezuelan State did not provide a satisfactory explanation about the legitimacy of the use of lethal force in light of the principles of legitimate purpose, strict necessity and proportionality. Additionally, the Commission concludes that even accepting the official version and conducting an analysis thereof, the State is clearly responsible, inasmuch as the police operation in and of itself and its continuation pursued purposes contrary to the Convention and created the risk of confrontations and, therefore, lead to the deaths that occurred. Lastly, the Commission concludes that there is consistency between statements and with the context among the statements of the family members and of other witnesses, who point to these incidents as being extrajudicial executions. 102. All of the abovementioned evidence taken all together enable the Commission to establish that the State of Venezuela is responsible for the violation of the right to life established in Article 4.1 of the American Convention in connection with the obligations set forth in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Robert Ignacio and David Octavio Díaz Loreto, as well as their father Octavio Ignacio Díaz. Additionally, taking into account the specific circumstances relating to the death of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, the IACHR establishes that the Venezuelan State is also responsible for the violation of the rights to humane treatment and personal liberty, to his detriment, as provided for in Articles 5 and 7 of the American Convention. B. Rights to a fair trial108 and judicial protection109 103. Preliminarily, the IACHR notes that in the instant case it is alleged that after the events occurring on January 6, 2003, the Díaz Loreto family was subjected to acts of harassment and threats because of the efforts it undertook to obtain justice for the deaths of Robert Ignacio and David Octavio Díaz Loreto, 106 107ECHR, ECHR, Caso Kakoulli Vs. Turquía, Application No. 385/97. November 22, 2005, § 108. Case Makaratzis v. Greece . Application No. 50385/99/95, 20 December 2004, § 60. 108 Article 8(1) of the American Convention states: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.. 109 Article 25(1) of the American Convention provides that: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 25