32 without the State genuinely seeking the truth, the State must show that it carried out an 105 immediate, exhaustive and impartial investigation. 164. In specific cases involving the lethal use of force by state agents, the Court has written that “[t]he general prohibition against arbitrarily depriving someone of his life, which state officials must observe, would be ineffective without proceedings to verify the legality of the lethal use of force by state officials”106. 165. Thus, the general obligation to ensure rights “is particularly important in cases involving the lethal use of force”107. As the Court wrote: Upon learning that firearms have been used by members of its security forces and that such use had lethal consequences, the State has the obligation to initiate, ex officio and without delay, a 108 serious, independent, impartial and effective investigation . This obligation is a fundamental and determining element of the protection of the right to life which is affected in such 109 situations . 166. In like manner, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions has written that: Human rights standards on the use of force derive from the understanding that the irreversibility of death justifies stringent safeguards for the right to life, especially in relation to due process. A judicial procedure, respectful of due process and arriving at a final judgment, is generally the sine qua non without which a decision by the State and its agents to kill someone will constitute an 110 “arbitrary deprivation of life” and, thus, violate the right to life . 105 IACHR, Annual Report 1997, Report No. 55/97, Case 11.137 (Juan Carlos Abella et al.), Argentina, paragraph 412. On this same topic, see: IACHR, Annual Report 1997, Report No. 52/97, Case 11.218 (Arges Sequeira Mangas), Nicaragua, paragraph 96 y 97. [54] The Inter-American Court has written, for example, that “the American Convention guarantees everyone access to justice to enforce their rights, and the States Parties have the obligation to prevent, investigate, identify and punish the masterminds and accessories of human rights violations.” I/A Court H.R., Case of the Constitutional Court, Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 71, paragraph 123. See also, I/A Court H.R., Blake Case, Reparations, Judgment of January 22, 1999, Series C No. 48, paragraph 65. 106 I/A Court H.R., Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador Case. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 88, citing Detention Center of Catia, pars. 79-83. 107 I/A Court H.R., Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador Case. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 88. 108 I/A Court H.R., Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador Case. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 88, citing. Cfr. Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras Case, supra note 75, par. 112. See also Miguel CastroCastro Prison v. Peru Case, supra note 14, par. 256, and Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay Case, supra note 64, par. 77. In a similar sense, see also ECHR, Erdogan and Others v. Turkey, supra note 66, pars. 88-89; ECHR, Kakoulli v. Turkey, supra note 66, pars. 122-123, and ECHR, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, pars. 111-112, 6 July 2005. 109 I/A Court H.R., Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador Case. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 88. 110 Cfr. Interim report on the worldwide situation in regard to extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions submitted by Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur. United Nations General Assembly. (Doc. A/61/311), Sixty-first session, 5 September 2006, para. 36.