B.1. The use of lethal force by State security forces 104. The case law of this Court has recognized that, although States have the obligation to guarantee security and maintain public order in their territory, the use of force by official security forces must be applied in exceptional circumstances, and must be planned and limited proportionately by the authorities. The Court has considered that force or coercive instruments may only be used when all other means of control have been exhausted and, consequently, have failed.92 105. Consistent with the foregoing, in cases where the use of force is imperative, it must satisfy the principles of legality, legitimate purpose, absolute necessity, and proportionality, which have been defined by the Court as follows: a) Legality: the exceptional use of force must be formulated by law and there must be a regulatory framework for its use.93 b) Legitimate purpose: the use of force must be directed to achieve a legitimate purpose.94 c) Absolute necessity: it must be verified whether there are other less harmful means available to protect the life and integrity of the person or the situation that is intended to be protected, in accordance with the circumstances of the case.95 In a higher degree of exceptionality stands the use of lethal force and firearms by state security agents against people, something that should be prohibited as a general rule. Its exceptional use must be interpreted restrictively so that it is minimized in all circumstances, not applying any more than is "absolutely necessary" in relation to the force or threat that it is intended to repel.96 d) Proportionality: the level of force used should be commensurate with the level of resistance offered,97 which implies a balance between the situation faced by the official and his response, considering the potential damage that could be caused. To this effect, the agents must apply a criterion of differentiated use of force, determining the degree of cooperation, resistance or aggression on the part of the criminal subject and, with Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 05, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 67, and Case of Roche Azaña et al. v. Nicaragua. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 3, 2020. Series C No. 403, para. 53. 93 Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 85, and Case of Roche Azaña et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 53, and Case of Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 10, 2020. Series C No. 415, para. 92. 94 Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, 1999 . supra, para. 85; Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 134, and Case of Roche Azaña et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 53, and Case of Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 92. 95 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra, paras. 67 y 68; Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 85, and Case of Roche Azaña et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 53, and Case of Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 92. 96 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 68, and Case of Roche Azaña et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 53, and Case of Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 92. See also, Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (hereinafter also “Basic Principles on the Use of Force”), adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Havana, Cuba, from August 27 to September 7, 1990, Principle No. 4. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/sp/professionalinterest/pages/useofforceandfirearms.aspx. 97 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 04, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 85; Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 85, and Case of Roche Azaña et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 53, and Case of Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 92. See also, Basic Principles on the Use of Force, supra, Principles No. 5 and 8. 92 25