international responsibility, the Commission will examine the possible violation of Article 4 of the American Convention in light of the available information and evidence. Thus, first, it will assess the actions of the State in the planning and deployment of the operation to capture Mr. Valencia Hinojosa, taking into account the obligations that the right to life imposes. Second, the Commission will determine if the State is responsible for the fatal outcome of that operation. 1. Planning and regulation of the potential use of force in the operation 168. The European Court has highlighted the importance that the right to life be be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective. 145 In that regard, even in the framework of police operations that seek a legitimate objective, such as the apprehension of a person who has just committed a criminal offense, international law imposes a series of requirements that derive from the protections afforded by the rights protected by the Convention, among them, the right to life. 169. In that regard, in state operations in which the “use of force” is permitted that may give rise, as an unintended consequence, to the deprivation of life, 146 States are required to adopt the necessary measures to create an adequate regulatory framework to deter any threat to this right.147 The Inter-American Court has held that States have a duty to adapt their national laws and to “see that their security forces, which are entitled to use legitimate force, respect the right to life of the individuals under their jurisdiction."148 170. The Inter-American court has held that this duty gives rise to the following obligations: (i) The State must be “clear when defining domestic policies on the use of force and pursue strategies to implement the Principles on the Use of Force and the Code of Conduct; (ii) Agents should be provided with different types of weapons, ammunition, and protective equipment that enable them to adapt the elements used in their reaction proportionately to the incidents in which they have to intervene, restricting the use of lethal weapons that can cause injury or death as much as possible; and (iii) 149 The State must 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. 150 171. The Inter-American Court has found 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.”151 With respect to this same obligation, the European Court considers that “unregulated and arbitrary action by State agents is incompatible with effective respect for human rights.” This means that “policing operations must be sufficiently regulated ... within the framework of a system of adequate and effective safeguards against arbitrariness and abuse of force.” 152 In the words of the European Court: 145 ECHR, Case McCann and others v. The United Kingdom. Application No. 27229/95, 27 September 1995, § 146. See, in that connection, I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. R. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 79. 146 ECHR, Case McCann and others v. The United Kingdom. Application No. 27229/95, 27 September 1995, § 148. 147I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 81; I/A Court H.R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, par. 66. 148 I/A Court H.R. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251. fr. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. TDetention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, par. 66. 149 I/A Court H.R. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, par. 84 150 I/A Court H.R. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, par. 80. 151 I/A Court H.R. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, par. 81 152ECHR, Case of Makaratzis v. Greece. Application No. 50385/99/95, 20 December 2004, § 58.