84. It follows from the aforementioned criteria that legitimate purpose, absolute necessity and proportionality of the use of force must be substantiated by the State in light of the particular circumstances of the specific case involved. Additionally, as a consequence of these principles, the Commission recalls that state agents who intervene in such operations must apply the criteria of “differentiated and progressive use of force, determining the degree of cooperation, resistance or violence of the subject against whom the intervention is intended and, on this basis, employ negotiating tactics, control or use of force, as required.”98 85. The Commission also notes that the Principles on the Use of Force provide for the use of firearms in “order to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority.” 99 Notwithstanding, as part of the requirements to authorize the use of force in said hypothetical situation, the Principles establish that: i) it may only be used only when other less extreme means are insufficient to achieve this purpose; ii) it must be used “when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life;” iii) officers must give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms;” and iv) this warning must be given with sufficient time for the warning to be observed, except when such a warning would unduly place the officer at risk or create a risk of death or serious harm to other persons. 86. In addition, with regard to the right to personal liberty, the Inter-American Court has indicated that, pursuant to Article 7.1 of the Convention, the protection of liberty safeguards "both the individuals' physical liberty and their personal safety, in a context in which the lack of guarantees may result in the subversion of the rule of law and the deprivation of the minimum forms of legal protection for the detainees."100 87. In regard to the duty to guarantee the right to personal liberty, the Court has emphasized that the State must ensure that the individuals' liberty is not compromised by the actions of state agents or third parties, and must investigate and punish acts which violate this particular right.101 With regard to the rights enshrined in Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the Convention, the Court has repeatedly held that “International Human Rights Law strictly prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment.”102 Regarding the duty to guarantee under Article 5 of the American Convention, the Court has held that this embodies the duty of the State to investigate possible acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.103 In order to find a breach of both the duty to respect and to ensure the right enshrined in Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the Convention, the IACHR must take into account, inter alia, factors such as: i) the fact that the victim was under the custody of law enforcement agents of the State without any judicial oversight and following an illegal and arbitrary detention, ii) the absence of an investigation in order to determine the cause of potential injury to the body of the victim; and iii) the deep fear caused by the anticipation of his likely fate under the circumstances of his deprivation of liberty.104 2. Analysis of the case 98 IA Court of HR. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012 Series C No. 251, par. 85. 99 Principles 9 and 10 of the 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. 100 I/A Court HR, Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, paragraph 104; Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, paragraph 56; Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paragraph 97; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paragraph 82. 101 I/A Court HR, Case González and others “Campo algodonero”. Judgment of November 16, 2009, paragraph 297. See also: IACHR. Report No. 11/10. Case 12.488. Members of the Barrios Family. Venezuela. March 16, 2010, para. 84. 102 I/A Court HR. Bueno Alves Case. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C, No. 164. para. 76; I/A Court HR., Miguel Castro Castro Prison Case. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C, No. 160. para. 271; and I/A Court HR., Baldeón García Case. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C, No. 147. para. 117. 103 I/A Court HR. Escué Zapata v. Colombia Case. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C, No. 165. para. 73; I/A Court HR. Bueno Alves Case. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C, No. 164. para. 88. 104 See: IACHR. Report No. 58/12. Case 12.606. Merits. Landaeta Mejías Brothers. Venezuela. March 21, 2012, para. 242. 22