[…] in keeping with the importance of Article 2 [right to life] in a democratic society, the Court must subject allegations of a breach of this provision to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of the agents of the State who actually administered the force but also all the surrounding circumstances, including such matters as the planning and control of the actions under examination ... . In [this] connection, police officers should not be left in a vacuum when performing their duties, whether in the context of a prepared operation or a spontaneous chase of a person perceived to be dangerous: a legal and administrative framework should define the limited circumstances in which ... officials may use force and firearms, in the light of the international standards which have been developed in this respect.153 172. In the instant case, with regard to the standards that govern operations of this type, the State forwarded copies of the Police Criminal Code and the Disciplinary Rules of the National Police. However, the aforesaid information does not disclose clear criteria that would be applicable to the use of force by the police, or rules on the different types of firearms and ammunition that should have been used in carrying out the instructions that were received for the operation executed. In addition, the State did not provide any information about the existence of supervision or control protocols for operations in which force might legitimately be used, or about training provided to its police on the "use of force.” Neither are there any references to elements of this nature in the judicial inquiry. 173. Thus, in the absence of clear rules on the use of force and of a minimal operational plan on such critical aspects as the type of firearms that should be carried full achieving the purpose of said operation, the Commission notes that in the instant case Lieutenant Cabezas took with him a "Ruger rifle," while the policeman Piedra was carrying a “glock” pistol, rather than firearms previously recognized as fit for the requirements demanded by the proportionate use of force. The ignorance of the suitability of weapons of this type for operations of this nature was evinced by the fact that National Policeman Luis Alfredo Verdezoto Rodríguez asked the policeman Cabezas, “Why are you taking my rifle?” after he snatched it from him from behind, and then offered no reply. 174. In this context, the Commission considers that the lack of regulation, planning, and control, created the right climate for the policemen involved in the operation to engage in improper and excessive use of force. 2. Deployment of the police operation and use of force 175. On this point, the Commission will examine the use of force in the framework of the police operation. According to the available information, which has not been contested by the parties, after Mr. Valencia shot Captain Joofre Venegas and Corporal Luis Lema and then took flight, Lieutenant Colonel Juan Ávila Hidalgo sent the duty patrol cars and a police pickup truck to track down Mr. Valencia and bring him back to the police station. The police report confirms that the order was “to search all the places where it was thought that he might be found.” The Commission considers that bearing in mind that Mr. Valencia had shot two policemen and was on the run carrying a firearm, the order given by Lieutenant [sic] Ávila Hidalgo was consistent with the legitimate and necessary security functions of the police. 176. Having said that, the Commission notes that the accounts offered by the policemen Cabezas and Piedra as to the manner in which the operation was deployed differ from those of the other persons who witnessed it. According to the account of the two policemen, after looking for Mr. Valencia at his home and then finding him in the "security guard’s quarters” of a sports facility, they told him to surrender and give up the revolver, which he refused, saying that "if [they] approached he would kill [them] and that the only way they would get him out of there was dead." According to the policeman Luis Piedra, "it was then that the now 153ECHR, Case of Makaratzis v. Greece. Application No. 50385/99/95, 20 December 2004, § 59.