except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.” 166 132. With regard to the facts surrounding the death of Igmar Landaeta, the Court observes that the arguments and the evidence provided indicate two versions of what happened (supra para. 59), which reveal certain differences in how the events occurred. Therefore, it is for domestic law to clarify the facts and to determine individual responsibilities. However, according to the Court’s case law, it should be recalled that, “in any case of the use of force [by State agents] that has caused the death of, or injuries to, one or more individuals, the State has the obligation to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of what happened and to disprove the allegations of its responsibility with adequate probative elements.” 167 133. Based on the evidence provided by the parties and the Commission, the Court notes that, despite the different versions, the following facts are not disputed (supra paras. 60, 61, 62 65, 64, 66 and 79): (a) two individuals in civilian clothing, who were police agents carrying out intelligence work, pursued Igmar Landaeta; (b) the agents used their weapons against Igmar Landaeta, who was hit by two bullets; (c) according to the autopsy, the two shots had different trajectories: (i) the first with “entry hole [located in] the ninth back left intercostal space towards the internal scapular region [and with] the exit hole [located in] the sixth right parasternal intercostal space, [its] trajectory was from the back towards the front, from above to below, from left to rights, and (ii) the second with an “entry hole on the bridge of the nose, with a halo of bruising around it, and a rough, irregular exit hole [in] the right parietal occipital region, [its] trajectory was from front to back, from left to right, from above to below”; (d) the second shot was lethal and caused “death [from] severe cerebral contusion, [owing to] a facio-cranial gunshot wound,” and (e) the body of Igmar Landaeta was transported from the scene of the incident to the Outpatient Clinic, where it was deposited in the emergency ward. B.2.1 The use of force in the case of Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías 134. If the use of force becomes unavoidable, it must be used in accordance with the principles of legitimate purpose, absolute necessity, and proportionality: i. Legitimate purpose: the use of force must be addressed at achieving a legitimate purpose. 168 According to the version of the supposed confrontation, this purpose consisted in detaining Igmar Landaeta, who had run away after the intelligence agents had presumably ordered him to halt while he was engaged in the hand-over of a firearm (supra para. 65). Subsequently, according to the agents, in response to shots fired by Igmar Landaeta, they used their firearms to repel the attack and to subdue him (supra para. 65). The Court has already indicated the absence of specific legislation on this 166 Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia), supra, para. 69, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al., supra, para. 84. Cf. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, supra, Principle 9. 167 Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia), supra, para. 80, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al., supra, para. 89. 168 Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al., supra, para. 85, and Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, supra, Principles No. 1, 7, 8 and 11. 34