81. The State must also train its agents to ensure that they know the legal provisions that permit the use of firearms and are properly trained so that if they have to decide on their use, they have the relevant criteria do so.120 Moreover, in the face of administrative offenses such as migratory offenses, the State must ensure appropriate training to address the type of offense and the vulnerability of migrants. 82. Based on the above, the State did not comply with its obligation to guarantee the rights to life and personal integrity by adequate legislation on the use of force, and failed to prove that it had provided training and instruction on the matter to law enforcement officials and, specifically, to the agents involved in the events of the case (infra para. 87), in violation of the obligation to guarantee the rights to life and to personal integrity, in relation to Article 1(1) and of the requirement to adopt provisions of domestic law, established in Article 2 of the Convention.121 2. Actions accompanying the events: legality, necessity and proportionality in relation to the obligation of respect 83. The Court observes that, from the facts of the case it has been proved that Dominican agents opened fire indiscriminately against a yellow truck that failed to stop at a checkpoint. To this end, they pursued the truck for several kilometers, firing shots that hit those who were being transported in the truck, killing four people. Another person lost his life when the truck subsequently turned over, and several others ran for their lives; at that point the agents opened fire killing two more people. Due to this display of force, six Haitian nationals and a Dominican national died and at least 10 others were injured (supra paras. 48 and 49). The evidence in the case file does not give any indication that the migrants were armed or had attempted some kind of violent act against the agents, which was confirmed by the solders involved in the events,122 and the State did not contest this. 84. In this regard, the Court considers that during an incident when a display of authority is deployed, insofar as possible, the State agents should assess the situation and draw up a plan of action before intervening. Thus, the Basic Principles on the Use of Force establish that “Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons 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.”123 a) The use of force in this case 120 Cf. Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of 29 August, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 143.1.a, and Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Reten de Catia) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 78. See also ECHR, Case of McCann et al. v. United Kingdom. No. 18984/91. Grand Chamber. Judgment. 27 September 1995, para. 151, and ECHR, Case of Kakoulli v. Turkey. No. 385/97. Fourth section. Judgment, 22 November, 2005, paras. 109 and 110. 121 Regarding the above, in light of Article 2 of the Convention, the Court has indicated that “[t]he general obligation [derived from this article] entails the adoption of measures of two types. On the one hand, the elimination of the norms and practices of any nature that imply a violation of the guarantees established in the Convention and, on the other, the enactment of norms and the implementation of practices leading to the effective observance of the said guarantees.” 122 Cf. Interrogation of Johannes Paul Franco Camacho on July 18, 2000, supra, folio 1569. 123 Cf. Principles on the Use of Force, Principle No. 9. 27