27 91. It is appropriate to analyze the facts of the instant case in the light of the aforementioned criteria, starting with the objectives defined by the State with regards to the actual use of lethal force in the instant case. 92. In the first place, the State pointed out that at the time of the operation, the three alleged victims, “who had criminal records and [had committed] a great number of assaults mostly in the city of Guayaquil, and who were members of a foreign drug dealers network[,] died in their attempt to repel the authority”. In this regard, the representatives asserted that it is false to say that the alleged victims were dangerous criminal and members of an organized criminal group and presented to that effect a certificate from the National Direction of the Judicial Police and Investigations, which certifies that three criminal proceedings had been opened against Wilmer Zambrano Vélez between 1984 and 1989 and that Messrs. Caicedo Cobeña did not have any criminal records. 93. In its ruling in other cases, the Court has pointed out that it is not a criminal court which can analyze the criminal responsibility of individuals81. This applies to the instant case, which does not concern the innocence or guilt of Mr. Zambrano, Mr. Caicedo Cobeña and Mr. Caicedo Cobeña, but rather the conformity of the acts of state agents with the American Convention, regarding the deprivation of the life of these alleged victims. 94. As laid down in the previous chapter (supra paras. 42-71), the decree-law establishing the state of emergency did not set any geographical, time and material limits to the suspension of guarantees “to the extent and for the period of time strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”. The Court considers that once it has been established that a military intervention with such a wide scope and depending on purposes as broad and vague has been carried out (supra paras. 48-52), and that the specific objectives of the March 6, 1993 operation have been set in such general terms (“to arrest criminals, drug dealers and terrorists”) (supra para. 74), the planning of an intervention of such a magnitude can end up to be so difficult as to render ineffective the appropriate security measures which can reasonably be planned to prevent and protect life and other guarantees which can not be suspended. Moreover, it makes it practically impossible to carry out an appropriate control and verification of the legality of the use of force in the instant case (supra paras. 83-90), especially concerning the criteria of exceptionality, necessity and proportionality, since this examination must depend strictly on the specific objectives, considering the circumstances of a particular situation. It is now appropriate to determine how the aforementioned considerations affected the specific circumstances in which the alleged victims were deprived of their life. 95. The representatives alleged that “information gathered by national and international human rights organisms […] demonstrate a modus operandi of the security forces[:] when they extrajudicially execute individuals, they always say that it occurred during a confrontation or that the alleged criminal tried to escape”. Those arguments have not been proven. In this regard, the State alleged that what did exist at that time was “a context of alarming insecurity, increasing violence and citizen concern”. Besides, the operation was justified by the joint command of the Ecuadorian Armed Forces in consideration of its duty to protect “the domestic security of the [N]ation” and “to fight those elements who seek to alter the citizen peace”, and was motivated by “the request from the citizens, medias and public opinion generally that the Armed Force intervene in view of the incontrollable growth of criminal activities” (supra paras. 74). Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37. See also Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 61, para. 122; Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 42, para. 63, and Case of RaxcacóReyes, supra note 44, para. 55. 81