37 190. When it is alleged that as a consequence of the excessive use of force a death has occurred, the Inter-American Court has established clear rules on the burden of proof. In the words of the Tribunal: whenever the use of force [by state agents] results in the death or injuries to one or more individuals, the State has the obligation to give a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the 247 events and to rebut allegations over its liability, through appropriate evidentiary elements 191. The Court has specifically laid down that it is up to the State to prove that the state authorities tried other less lethal methods of intervention that proved to be unsuccessful, and that the reaction of the security forces was as necessary and proportional as the situation required, in particular 248 the threat posed by the victim. 192. The European Court of Human Rights has also detailed the contents that an effective investigation should fulfill in order to evaluate the legality of the lethal use of force. In the words of this Tribunal "the essential aim of the investigation is to ensure the effective implementation of national laws which protect the right to life and in cases involving state agents or bodies, to assure the accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility. The investigation must be independent, open to the families of the victim, and take place within a reasonable time, effective - in the sense of being capable of reaching a determination as to whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified, or was 249 illegal - and must allow public scrutiny of the investigation or its conclusions." 193. In the instant case, the Commission has recognized as proven that Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías lost his life on November 17, 1996 after a firearms incident with persons in civilian dress who were later identified as officers of the CSOP of Aragua State. In addition, the Commission explained that there are two versions of these events, the version of the police officers indicating that it was a confrontation and that Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías was armed, and the version of various witnesses and the family indicating that the young man was extrajudicially executed as he lay wounded on the ground begging them not to kill him. 194. The Commission first notes that it is undisputed that the individuals who killed Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías were agents of the State. The analysis to be done is whether what happened constituted a legitimate use of force and, consequently, whether or not the deprivation of life was arbitrary under the terms of Article 4 of the Convention. 195. To perform this analysis, the Commission emphasizes various factors based on the proven facts. The autopsy conducted on Igmar Alexander, as well as its evaluation in the context of the judicial proceeding and in various witness statements, indicates that the young man was shot twice, once in the back with a trajectory from back to front and once in the face with a trajectory from front to back. …continuation 324, paragraphs 148-150, 194, and Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials adopted by the General Assembly of United Nations, Resolution 34/169, December 17, 1979, Article 3. 246 I/A Court HR, Case Montero Aranguren and others (Retén de Catia). Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150. paragraph 68. In a similar sense, see also the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990, Principle 9. 247 I/A Court HR, Case Zambrano Vélez and others Vs. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, paragraph 108; I/A Court HR, Case Montero Aranguren and others (Retén de Catia). Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150. paragraph 80; I/A Court HR, Case Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147. paragraph 117 and paragraph 120. 248 I/A Court HR, Case Zambrano Vélez and others Vs. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, paragraph 108. 249 ECHR. Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, paragraphs 105-109, 4 May 2001; Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (December), no. 56413/00, 8 January 2002.