force because, as was noted, it was not used for the purpose of saving a life, less extreme means were not explored to avoid his alleged escape, nor was he warned with sufficient advance notice that the firearms of the military officers could be deployed. Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that even though the military agent had the impression that a gun existed, the use of deadly force did not meet the requirements of legitimate purpose and strict necessity. 87. The State also noted that, because it was the early morning hours of the day and there was little visibility, “the shots were not aimed at a target,” and therefore it was “an accident.” In light of these arguments, the Commission notes that visibility at the location does not constitute an impediment for the military agents to stop an automobile and attempt to conduct a search thereof and of its occupants. As such, the argument that the shots hit Mirey Trueba because of reduced visibility is not consistent with the factual context. Without prejudice to the foregoing and independently of the visibility at the location, firing eleven rounds in the direction of a person who was running away in the opposite direction in no way can be construed as an accident. Even if we accept that Mirey Trueba was armed, responding with eleven shots constitutes an obvious lack of caution and disregard for the requirement of strict proportionality in the use of deadly force, as explained above. 88. The Commission notes that what happened to Mr. Trueba is exactly what can happen when States place human rights at risk by assigning the duties of citizen security to Armed Forces. Additionally, the State’s failure to act, examined earlier in this report, in not taking preventive measures through regulation, equipping, training and overseeing, directly contributed to these incidents. 89. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the use of deadly force against Mr. Trueba was not in line with the principles of legitimate purpose, necessity and proportionality. Accordingly, the Commission finds that Mr. Mirey Trueba was extrajudicially executed and, therefore, arbitrarily deprived of his life, in violation of Article 4.1 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligation to respect rights established in Article 1.1 of this same instrument. This conclusion stems from the fact that the fatal outcome of the victim was caused by shots fired by Lieutenant Coronel Luis Morales, without prejudice to the examination hereunder regarding actions after the use of force. 1.3 Examination of subsequent actions: The transfer of Mirey Trueba to the medical facility 90. In light of the fact that Mr. Mirey Trueba did not die immediately after being shot, in the instant case, the examination of subsequent actions relates to the response of state agents to the fatal wounds that one of them had just caused in the victim. 91. On this score, the Basic Principles on the Use of Force establish that officers who use force “shall ensure that assistance and medical aid are rendered to any injured or affected persons at the earliest possible moment.”98 92. As such, the Commission finds that the Mexican State had the duty to provide timely and immediate medical care to Mr. Trueba, who was alive and wounded as a result of the shots fired at him by a military agent. 93. Based on the statements provided by witnesses, as well as documentation provided by the parties, the Commission will summarize what happened to Mr. Trueba after he was shot. The IACHR stresses that there is not dispute that he was shot at around 1:10 a.m. on August 22, 1998. 94. Pursuant to the statements of the two persons accompanying Mr. Trueba, they were mistreated, one was even beaten, in addition to being prevented from getting near Mirey Trueba to provide 98 UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, in Havana, Cuba, August 27 to September 7, 1990. 17