28 persecution94. Specifically, the state of inebriate or not of a police officer was considered irrelevant by the European Court in order to analyze the international responsibility of the State95. 144. Moreover, in the case Sašo Gorgiev v. "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", the European Court analyzed a situation in which a police officer in a bar used his service weapon to shot a person. In this case, the European Court took into account that regardless of where the official is, being on duty, using his service weapon, and being perceived as a police officer by the people around activates the international responsibility of the State96. 145. Of particular relevance to the analysis of this case, the European Court analyzed the merits of the case notwithstanding there was a sentence in a domestic court for unintentional “serious bodily injury with life-threatening damage”. The analysis of the Commission on this point will be made in the section related to articles 8 and 25 of the Convention97. 146. It has been established that the police office was on duty and that his alleged inebriate is irrelevant in this analysis. Therefore, according to the rules of burden of proof related to the use of lethal force, the State must provide a satisfactory explanation of what happened as well as the strict compliance with those requirements in the instant case. 147. The Ecuadorian State has not provided any explanation that would suggest that the death of José Luís García Ibarra was a legitimate use of force. The State has focused their arguments on the nature of the offense as intentional or unintentional. In this regard, the Commission considers important to note that the analysis of the possible international responsibility of a State is not based on the need to verify the agent's subjective intention. Under international law the elements of analysis of State’s international responsibility are different. Those elements are based on the exceptional nature of the use of force, and they require an analysis of the necessity, precaution and proportionality when using it. In the instant case, being proven that it is a situation of use of lethal force, it will be analyzed under those standards. 148. Furthermore, from the evidence in the case file, there is no information to justify what happened. Quite the contrary, the testimony and other documentary evidence analyzed in the section on findings of fact provide sufficient information to conclude that the use of force in this case was unnecessary and disproportionate. 149. Recapitulating, José Luís García Ibarra was sitting under a tree, chatting with other teenagers and posed no threat to anyone nearby. The eyewitness statements presented to the Ecuadorian courts and attached to the case file, including the statement made by police officer Guillermo Segundo Cortez Escobedo, are all in agreement on this point. 94 ECHR. Gorovenky and Bugara v. Ukraine 12 April 2012, citing ECHR. Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia. 26 April 95 ECHR. Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia. 26 April 2011. 96 ECHR. Sašo Gorgiev v. “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. 19 July 2012. Application No. 49382/06. 97 Sašo Gorgiev v. “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. 19 July 2012. Application No. 49382/06. 2011.