29 116. The European Court has established that based on the importance of protecting the right to life, the deprivation of life must be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny, and it must take into account 145 not only the actions of the State’s agents but also the surrounding circumstances of the case. 117. The IACHR notes that the parties have differing opinions with regard to the following facts: a) whether or not the troops who were pursuing the yellow truck were able to see that it was carrying persons in the bed which was covered by a tarp; b) whether the troops fired at the truck’s tires or directly into the body and c) whether the troops fired at the persons who were fleeing from the truck after it had overturned. 118. The Commission also notes that there are several elements present in the case that must be taken into account in order to determine whether the Dominican State violated the American Convention with regard to the victims who were executed. In that regard, the Commission finds it is relevant to point out the following facts in connection to the present case:  Historically, the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic has seen a great flow of Haitian migrants in search of agricultural work, which is well known to Dominican authorities.  The testimony included in the case file, as well as information provided by the State indicate that the Dominican Republic was aware of the modus operandi used by some Dominicans to smuggle migrants and the authorities had even stopped the same truck in previous occasions when it was carrying Haitians. 146  It has been proven that on the day the events took place, the yellow truck that crossed the checkpoint at Botoncillo did not obey the troops’ signal to stop but rather sped away. For that reason the DOIF patrol pursued the truck in a wagon along a deserted highway leading to the town of Copey.  The information contained in the case file indicates that the military had information that there would be an attempt to smuggle drugs across the border, and that is why— according to the Major in charge of the operation—for strategic reasons, they had decided to position themselves at the Botoncillo checkpoint. .  The testimonies provided by the survivors makes evident that the persons traveling in the yellow truck never fired a shot or endangered the lives of the members of the patrol or of other persons.  It has been proven that the members of the patrol fired in the direction of the yellow truck. During the military proceedings, the judge confirmed that the truck had bullet holes in the back door and in the cabin, and no impact on the tires.  The testimonies of the members of the military patrol is consistent in affirming that, during the pursuit, they saw when, from the door on the passenger side of the cabin of the yellow truck, the body of a man came out and ended up lying on the side of the road, but the patrol continued its pursuit and, according to the testimonies, continued firing shots.  The autopsy reports contained in the case file are those issued on June 20, 2000, by the Forensic Pathology Institute, which established that on six of the seven cases, the cause of death was gunshot wounds, the majority of them to the head, thorax and abdomen. 145 ECHR, Case of Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Rusia, Applications nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, Judgment of 24 February, 2005, par. 170. ECHR, Case of Nachova and others v. Bulgaria, Applications nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, Judgment of 6 July, 2005, par. 93. 146 Note of June 18, 2000, from the Commander of the 10th Infantry Battalion. State document dated September 20, 2010, Annex,