reasonable measures in place to ensure that military training activities, the planning of operations, and the use of military equipment and weaponry do not pose an unnecessary risk to the life of military recruits and personnel. 200. The Commission takes into account the fact that the system under which Johan Alexis Ortiz lived, was disciplined, and punished was controlled entirely by the State by virtue of the training and military regime to which he was subject; hence, the State had an exceptional duty to protect and guarantee his rights.270 This duty, while exercised in a context distinct from that of civilians, is heightened when it comes to the protection of inalienable rights, such as the right to life. 201. Furthermore, concerning the duty to protect the right to life, the European Court of Human Rights has asserted that what must be examined is “not only whether the use of potentially lethal force […] was legitimate, but also whether the operation was regulated and organized in such a way as to minimize to the greatest extent possible any risk to … life.” 271 Concerning that duty, the Commission notes that the jurisprudence of the European Court has stated, in turn, that individuals in a vulnerable position vis-à-vis State authorities have the right to protection by the State.272 In the instant case, the IACHR notes that Mr. Ortiz was a student at the National Guard Training Academy, which was under the authority and control of the military personnel who conducted the exercise (which was the final phase of his training as a member of the National Guard). Therefore, as indicated by that Court, the right to life not only obliges the State to abstain from intentionally or illegally violating this right but “also extends in appropriate circumstances to a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk”. 273 202. In light of these considerations, the State has not provided elements to justify the terms under which the activity was conducted. According to his parents’ account, NG officers told them that the purpose of the exercise was to train “men for war,” but the only official document indicating the use of live ammunition mentions that it was a “harassment measure” (supra par. 37), with no further details about the relevance of its use. That is, the case file contains no explanation or justification for the use of lethal force or the State’s purpose in putting the life of Johan Alexis Ortiz in a situation of avoidable risk, against which appropriate measures were not instituted to guarantee this right. 203. Johan Alexis Ortiz was directly subordinate to State agents. Therefore, given the existence of the possible arbitrary deprivation of his right to life, the State had the duty to conduct an effective investigation that, through a judicial determination, would clarify the circumstances leading up to the death of the alleged victim in this context, in application of the standards described in the analysis on guarantees and judicial protection.274 This, added to the fact that no reasonable measures were in place to appropriately respond to any emergency, even though there was a real risk of a threat to the life of the students participating in the activity. This conduct has also not been investigated with a view to disciplinary action. 204. In this regard, the European Court has asserted that, given the importance accorded to the protection of the right to life in democratic societies, the examination of the events resulting in the deprivation of that right should be conducted with the most careful scrutiny, considering not only the actions of the agents who actually administer the force but also all the surrounding circumstances, including such matters as the planning and control of the actions.275 270 See also: IACHR, Report No. 84/13, Case 12.482, Valdemir Quispealaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, November 4, 2013, Par. 114. 271ECHR, Case of Makaratzis v. Greece. Application No. 50385/99/95, December 20, 2004, § 60. 272ECHR, Case of Keenan v. The United Kingdom. Application No. 27229/95, April 3, 2001, § 92. 273 ECHR, Case of Keenan v. The United Kingdom. Application No. 27229/95, 3 April 2001, § 92. 274 IA Court of HR, Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, Par. 106. 275 ECHR, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, Application no. No. 27229/95, September 1995 § 150.