25 limits the principle of necessity by forbidding those measures of violence which are not necessary (i.e. relevant and proportionate) to the achievement of a definitive military advantage. In peacetime situations, state agents must distinguish between persons who, by their actions, constitute an imminent threat of death or serious injury and persons who do not present such a threat, and use force only against the former69. 2) Existence of a legal framework to regulate the use of force 86. Domestic law must establish standards clear enough to regulate the use of lethal force and firearms by members of the State security forces70, as well as to guarantee an independent control of its legality (infra paras 88-90). 3) Planning of the use of force - education and training of state armed forces and security agencies 87. An appropriate legislation would not fulfill its goal if, inter alia, States would not educate and train members of their armed forces and security agencies on principles and rules of human rights protection and on the limits to which the use of weapons by law enforcement officials must be subject to in all circumstances71. In fact, the European Court of Human Rights held that the matter of whether firearms should be used, and in which circumstances, must be decided according to clear legal provisions and appropriate training72. It is essential for government officials to be aware of the legal rules authorizing the use of firearms and to be appropriately trained in order to have all the necessary information to decide whether or not to use such arms if they have to make such a decision73. 4) Appropriate control and verification of the legitimacy of the use of force 88. The general prohibition to arbitrarily deprive someone of his life, which state officials must observes, would be ineffective without proceedings to verify the legality of the lethal use of force by state officials74. The Court has considered that the general duty under Article 1(1) of the Convention to ensure the free and full exercise of the human rights recognized therein entails the obligation to investigate violations of any substantive right which must be protected or Cf., similarly, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Report on terrorism and human rights (OEA/ser.4 V/II.116), October 22, 2002..See also, United Nations. Provisional Report on the world situation respecting extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions presented by Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur (A/61/311), September 5, 2006. 69 Following the “Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials”, the rules and regulations on the use of firearms by law enforcement officials should include guidelines that: (a) specify the circumstances under which law enforcement officials are authorized to carry firearms and prescribe the types of firearms and ammunition permitted; (b) ensure that firearms are used only in appropriate circumstances and in a manner likely to decrease the risk of unnecessary harm; (c) prohibit the use of those firearms and ammunition that cause unwarranted injury or present an unwarranted risk; (d) regulate the control, storage and issuing of firearms, including procedures for ensuring that law enforcement officials are accountable for the firearms and ammunition issued to them; (e) provide for warnings to be given, if appropriate, when firearms are to be discharged; (f) provide for a system of reporting whenever law enforcement officials use firearms in the performance of their duty. See also Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention center of Catia), supra note 31, para. 75. 70 71 Cf. Case of the Caracazo. Reparations. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 127. See also Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention center of Catia), supra note 31, para. 77. 72 Cf. ECHR, Erdogan and Others v. Turkey, supra note 66, para. 68; ECHR, Kakoulli v. Turkey, supra note 66, para. 109-110; ECHR, Kiliç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, para. 62, 28 March 2000, y ECHR, Simsek and Others v. Turkey, nos. 35072/97 and 37194/97, paras. 104-108, 26 July 2005. 73 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention center of Catia), supra note 31, para. 78. 74 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention center of Catia), supra note 31, paras. 79-83.