80. Both the Inter-American Commission and Court have held that the use of force must be examined in any case in which force has been deployed, wherein State agents have killed or injured anyone.93 As such, the Commission will examine the facts of the case in light of Inter-American legal precedent on the right to life, in connection with the obligations to respect and ensure, and on the subject of the use of force. For this purpose, the IACHR will take note of different international instruments on the subject matter and, in particular, the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials and the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (hereinafter, “Principles on the Use of Force” and “Code of Conduct,” respectively). 81. When allegations are made that a death was the result of the use of force, both the IACHR and the Inter-American Court have established clear rules on the burden of proof. In the words of the InerAmerican Court: Whenever the use of force [by state agents] results in the death or injuries to one or more individuals, the State has the obligation to give a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events and to rebut allegations over its liability, through appropriate evidentiary elements.94 82. Similarly, the UN Human Rights Committee has held that in cases where further clarification depends on information exclusively in the hands of the State, allegations may be considered substantiated in the absence of satisfactory evidence or explanation to refute the claims of the petitioners.95 This is very much in line with the holding of the European Court to the effect that in cases of death as a consequence of the use of deadly force, the strictest test must be used on the compelling nature of said use of force.96 83. As such, in order for an explanation of the use of deadly force to be deemed satisfactory, it must be the fruit of an investigation that is compatible with guarantees of independence, impartiality and due diligence and, additionally, must meet certain requirements under Inter-American legal precedent in order to justify the use of force, which are: i. Legitimate purpose: the use of force must be aimed at achieving a legitimate purpose. (…) ii. Absolute necessity: it is necessary to verify whether other less harmful means exist to safeguard the life and integrity of the person or situation that is sought to protect, according to the circumstances of the case. (…) iii. Proportionality: the level of force used must be in accordance with the level of resistance offered, which implies striking a balance between the situation that the agent is facing and his response, considering the potential harm that could be caused.97 93 IA Court of HR. 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. Par. 123; IACHR, Case 11.442, Report No. 90/14, Merits, Luis Jorge Valencia Hinojosa, Ecuador, November 4, 2014, par. 123. 94 IA Court of HR. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 108; Case of Cruz Sánchez et al v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 17, 2015. Series C No. 292, par. 291; and Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, par. 132. 95 UN, Human Rights Committee. Case of Irene Bleier Lewenhoff and Rosa Valiño de Bleier v. Uruguay. Communication No. 30/1978, UN Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, of March 29, 1982, par. 13.3; Case of Albert Womah Mukong v. Cameroon. Communication No. 458/1991, UN Doc. CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991, of July 21, 1994, par. 9.2, and Case of Turdukan Zhumbaeva v. Kyrgyzstan. Communication Nº 1756/2008, UN Doc. CCPR/C/102/D/1756/2008, of July 29, 2011, par. 8.7. 96 ECHR, Case McCann and others v. The United Kingdom. Application No. 27229/95, 27 September 1995, § 149. IA Court of HR. 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, par. 134. 97 21