27 Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court”) has determined, “disrespect for human dignity cannot 137 serve as the bases for any State action.” 136 120. Therefore, according to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court, while law enforcement officials may legitimately use lethal force in the performance of their duties, this use must be defined by exceptionality and must be planned and proportionally limited by the authorities so that “force or coercive means may only be used once all other methods of control have been exhausted and have 138 failed.” In this sense, the use of force must be defined by its exceptionality and must be planned and proportionally limited by the authorities. According to the Court, the use of lethal force and firearms against persons by State security agents requires a higher degree of exceptionality, and must be forbidden as a general rule. Its exceptional use must be determined by the law and restrictively construed so that it is used to the minimum extent possible in all circumstances and never exceeds the use which is 139 “absolutely necessary” in relation to the force or threat to be repelled. Whenever excessive force is 140 used, any resulting deprivation of life is arbitrary. 121. In this regard, the IACHR has held that state agents may use lethal force “where strictly unavoidable to protect themselves or other persons from imminent threat of death or serious injury, or to 141 otherwise maintain law and order where strictly necessary and proportionate.” The use of force, including lethal force, will only be lawful when nonviolent means are manifestly incapable of protecting the 142 threatened rights. 122. For its part, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the European Court”) has held that the term “absolutely necessary” in relation to the use of lethal force demands a test of necessity that is stricter and more convincing than that used to determine whether State action is necessary in a democratic society. As a result, any use of force must be strictly proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.143 123. Therefore, when it is alleged that a death has occurred as a result of the excessive use of force, the Inter-American Court has set out clear rules concerning the burden of proof. According to the Court: 136 Case of Neira Alegría, para. 75, referring to the Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, para. 154 and Case of Godínez Cruz, para. 162. 137 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/ll.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1 corr., October 22, 2002, para. 107. 138 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 83; and Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al (Detention Center of Catia). Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 67. See also, ECHR, Case of Nachova and others v. Bulgaria, Application nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, Judgment of 6 July, 2005, para. 94. 139 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al (Detention Center of Catia), Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 68. In a similar sense, see, ECHR, Huohvanainen v. Finland, 13 March 2007, no. 57389/00, paras. 93-94; ECHR, Erdogan and Others v. Turkey, 25 April 2006, no. 19807/92, para. 67; ECHR, Kakoulli v. Turkey, 22 November 2005, no. 38595/97, paras. 107-108; ECHR, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, paras. 148150, 194, and the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 34/169, of December 17, 1979, Article 3. 140 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al (Detention Center of Catia), Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 68. In a similar sense, see also, 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, August 27 to September 7, 1990, Principle 9. See also, IACHR, Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II., Doc. 57, December 31, 2009, para. 107. 141 CIDH, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, para. 87. CIDH, Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II., Doc. 57, December 31, 2009, para. 113. 142 143 CIDH, Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II., Doc. 57, December 31, 2009, para. 117. ECHR, Case of Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia, Application nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, Judgment of 24 February, 2005, para. 169.