-99responsibility to the State, because, in order to confront “the difficulties resulting from the tension between constitutional rights it is necessary to weigh such rights in order to harmonize constitutional rights when they conflict.” In addition, it indicated that this principle must be taken into consideration, because there could be a conflict of obligations in relation to a specific hypothetical fact; for example, in the hypothesis of simultaneous attacks of illegal armed groups on different villages. More specifically, the State argued that: The armed forces present in the zone – those on the roadblock and those at the base – covered a specific area and provided security to specific roads, so that demanding greater coverage or simply another activity would adversely effect the security plan that had been designed for the zone, which had studied the different variants and possibilities of defense. The roadblock was located there and not in another place for a reason! If, for example, the armed forced had carried out monitoring visits to the nearby villages, they would have neglected the central surveillance point, which also served as protection for other rights, precisely those of the inhabitants of the zone where they were stationed. Moreover, they cannot be expected to implement a strategy that endangers their own life, because this would evidently be ineffective and incompatible with the State’s purpose of security and control.210 133. It is true that the principle of proportionality is an important criteria or tool for the application and interpretation of domestic laws and international instruments, to determine the attribution of responsibility to the State. This depends on the nature of the rights which are alleged to have been violated, the general or specific limitations allowed to its enjoyment and exercise, and the characteristics of each case. However, this case is not seeking a decision on the legitimacy of a State interference, restriction or limitation in the sphere of an individual right protected by the Convention in view of specific objectives in a democratic society.211 Neither is it trying to determine the need for the use of force by the State’s security forces, in cases in which the arbitrary nature of the death of individuals must be determined and it is necessary to estimate the proportionality of the measures taken to control a situation when the public order is affected or in a state of emergency.212 In those hypotheses, the principle of proportionality would be clearly applicable. 210 Cf. brief with final written arguments submitted by the State (merits file, tome IV, p. 108, folio 988). 211 Likewise, cf., inter alia, Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 11, para. 197; Case of Ricardo Canese. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 153; Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 74; Case of Tibi, supra note 192, para. 180; Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, paras. 84, 85 and 143; Compulsory Membership in an Association prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, paras. 45 and 54; Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, paras. 54-55. See also, European Court of Human Rights, Sunday Times v. United Kingdom, judgement of 26 April 1979, Series A 30; Observer and Guardian v. United Kingdom, judgement of 26 November 1991, Series A 216; Goodwin v. United Kingdom, judgement of 27 March 1996, Reports 1996II 483; Jersild v. Denmark, judgement of 23 September 1994, Series A 298; Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, judgement of 30 January 1998, Reports 1998; Handyside v. United Kingdom, Judgement of 7 December 1976, Series A, No. 24; (1979-80) 1 EHRR 737, para. 48; Müller and Others v. Switzerland, judgement of 24 May 1988, Series A 133; the “Belgian linguistic” case v. Belgium, judgement of 23 July 1968, Series A 6; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. United Kingdom, judgement of 28 May 1985, Series A 94; Hoffmann v. Austria, judgement of 23 June 1993, Series A 255-C; Marckx v. Belgium, judgement of 13 June 1979, Series A 31; and Vermeire v. Belgium, judgement of 29 November 1991, Series A 214-C. 212 Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, paras. 79 and 108; Case of Neira Alegría et al. Judgment of January 19, 1995 (Series C No. 20, paras. 69 and 72; Right to a Fair Trial in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 107; Habeas Corpus in Emergency